Trenton Oldfield made a name for himself – as no doubt was his intention – when he disrupted the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, last year. His “protest” caused the race to be restarted and much anger among members of the public, many of whom saw his actions as a selfish and supercilious attention-seeking exercise. He was arrested and charged with causing a public nuisance. He was convicted, somewhat unsurprisingly, and given a six-month custodial sentence.
Oldfield, an Australian national, is married and is expecting a child. He has lived in the UK for 10 years and has a tier one visa as a highly-skilled migrant. A tier 1 visa grants individuals leave to remain in the UK for a specified period of time. Presumably, that visa is due to expire and he applied for a spousal visa.
A spousal visa usually operates a two-year probationary period, after which it is necessary to demonstrate that the couple have been living together. The individual may then apply for indefinite leave to remain.
Oldfield’s application was refused. It was reported that the Home Office informed him that following his conviction, his continued presence in the UK would not be “conducive to the public good”. General Grounds for Refusal guidance issued by the UK Border Agency in relation to the Immigration Rules suggests that people who are refused leave on the basis that it is conducive to the public good “may include:
- a member of a proscribed group
- a person suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity
- a person whose presence is undesirable because of their character, conduct or associations
- a person whose presence might lead to an infringement of UK law or a breach of public order, and/or
- a person whose presence may lead to an offence being committed by someone else.”
The Immigration Rules govern the decision-making in relation to leave to remain and guidance on adverse decisions which is to be read alongside the Rules states that “it will never be appropriate to refuse an application where there is no evidence to support the decision” and that “the refusal must show that the immigration officer or the Secretary of State was acting reasonably in deciding that he was not satisfied.” One may question whether that is so.
Deportation
Foreign nationals are open to deportation following a conviction where certain conditions are met. Where, upon a conviction, an individual who is not a British citizen, is sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, there is a duty incumbent upon the Secretary of State to make a deportation order. This is known as automatic deportation.
Oldfield received a (harsh) six-month sentence and so was nowhere near to the level at which the automatic deportation policy would “bite”. There was a power for the court to order his deportation, but this would have been an erroneous decision and one which would no doubt have been successfully quashed on appeal. What is interesting to note then, is that had Oldfield have applied for his spousal visa in 2012, and disrupted the 2013 boat race, he would not have presumably been deported.
The BBC reported that a Home Office spokesperson stated: “Those who come to the UK must abide by our laws.” That is no justification for refusing his application as the deportation regime outlined above did not require his removal. It is arguably contrary Parliament’s will.
If Oldfield was not subject to deportation arising from his conviction in 2012, why should that now be determinative of his leave to remain upon an application for a new visa? At best that is a woefully inconsistent policy, and at worst, it is a vengeful, vindictive and juvenile.
Appeal
Oldfield has a full right of appeal and he told the Guardian that he has appealed against the decision. The appeal will be heard before First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber).
There is of course a human rights element to this saga. Both Trenton Oldfield and his wife have a right under article 8 to a family life and it would seem disproportionate and in breach of those rights to refuse him leave to remain as a result of his conviction, despite the deportation procedure not being triggered.
Notwithstanding what you may think of him, perhaps it is worth the Home Office asking whether attempting to remove Oldfield from the UK “conducive to the public good”, considering the time and expense involved (and embarrassment when the decision is subsequently reversed). His actions were selfish, yet it is the Home Office who look the fool.
Editor’s note: This article originally stated that Oldfield appeal would be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Chamber. This was incorrect – it will be heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) – and the article has been amended accordingly.
Content from our partners
Related
