请在 下方输入 要搜索的题目:

A Canadian woman applies for indefinite leave to remain in the UK having lived in the UK for seven years, during which she has had two children. The Home Office refuse the woman's application in a written decision, giving no opportunity to her to make oral representations. The given reason for the decision is that the woman was cautioned by the police for shoplifting six years ago. In making its decision, the Home Office relies on a discretion set out in a 2018 Act of Parliament and in associated guidance to refuse indefinite leave to anyone with a conviction or caution. The woman has a right of appeal to a tribunal against the Home Office decision.How should the woman's solicitor best use the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR.to argue against the Home Office's decision?


A、The Home Office's decision does not pursue a legitimate aim and is therefore unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. incorrect
B、The Home Office's decision is contrary to Art 7 ECHR as it imposes a retrospective punishment for the old shoplifting offence, and is therefore unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. incorrect
C、The discretion granted to the Home Office to grant or refuse the application without a hearing is contrary to Art 6 ECHR and the court should issue a declaration of incompatibility under s4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. incorrect
D、The Home Office's decision is unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it is a disproportionate interference with the woman and her family's rights to private and family life under Art 8 ECHR. correct
E、The Home Office's discretion is not 'prescribed by law' and therefore the exercise of the discretion in the woman's case is unlawful under s6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. incorrect

发布时间:2025-07-19 07:40:08
推荐参考答案 ( 由 快搜搜题库 官方老师解答 )
联系客服
答案:D
专业技术学习
专业技术学习
搜搜题库系统