Press release from Barry O’Leary

6 October 2011

The Home Secretary, in her speech at the Conservative Party Conference, referred to a matter in which I acted.

The Judicial Office has already made a statement in this matter and I wish to give my support to that statement.

The case referred to was not decided on the basis of ownership of a cat. It was decided on the basis of a Home Office policy which the Home Office themselves had failed to apply. This was accepted by the Home Office before the Immigration Judge. The Home Office agreed the appeal should be allowed. The ownership of a cat was immaterial to the final decision made. Any press reports to the contrary are not based on fact.

The case involved a foreign national in a long term committed relationship with a British Citizen. They had been living together for four years at the time of the appeal. He was not a foreign national prisoner nor had he been charged with or convicted of any offence.

I had made an application on the foreign national's behalf for the right to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a Home Office policy known as DP3/96. DP3/96 was a Home Office policy which stated that individuals who had been in a relationship with a settled person for in excess of two years, and no immigration enforcement action had been take against them, could be granted exceptional leave. The policy has now been withdrawn.

The application was refused and my client appealed against that decision. I stress that it was not argued at any point by this firm, nor by my client, that he would 'suffer from being separated from his cat' nor that 'the pet's quality of life would be affected.' Our arguments were based on the long-term committed nature of the couple's relationship. Their ownership of a cat was just one detail amongst many given to demonstrate the genuine nature of their relationship.

It was, in fact, the official acting on behalf of the Home Secretary who, when writing the letter of refusal, stated that the cat could relocate to Bolivia and cope with the quality of life there. This statement was not in response to any argument put forward by this firm or my client (and was, frankly, rather mischievous on behalf of the official).

The appeal against the refusal was successful and, when giving judgment, because the reasons for refusal did refer to the cat the judge commented on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. However, it was not the reason for allowing the appeal. The appeal was allowed because of the couple's relationship, and the judge also relied on the Home Office policy that had not been applied.

The Home Secretary asked for the decision to be reconsidered, stating that the Home Office policy should not be relied on and there was too much reliance on the cat. The Home Secretary was given permission to put the arguments to the tribunal and the decision of the tribunal is that of SIJ Gleeson.

It was decided by Immigration Judge Gleeson that the first judge's decision should stand. As is clear from the determination, she came to this decision because the Home Secretary, in refusing the application, had not applied their own policy DP3/96 (which had been withdrawn but the transitional provisions of which should have been applied to my client). It was made clear by the initial judge and then by Immigration Judge Gleeson that the Appellant should benefit from that policy and be granted the right to remain.

Furthermore, it was accepted by the Home Office representative at the hearing before Immigration Judge Gleeson that the policy should apply and any errors in the initial decision by the judge (including too much detail on the cat) were immaterial.

See paragraph 6 of the determination. It makes clear that it is the former policy DP3/96 which is the basis on which the appeal was won.

SIJ Gleeson did go on to make a joke about the cat, clearly because she recognized that the discussion of the cat was irrelevant to the serious issue of applying Home Office policies correctly. This case was won because the Home Office had a policy which they did not initially apply but later, through their representative, they accepted should have been applied.