Rehabilitation, Non-Reoffending and the Public Interest in Deportation Appeals
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Majera v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1597 is an important reminder that rehabilitation does matter in deportation cases—but only when it is analysed with care, discipline, and proper legal reasoning.
The case sits at the intersection of three recurring themes in deportation appeals:
serious criminal offending, long-term residence and private life in the UK, and the public interest in preventing future offending rather than simply punishing past conduct.
The judgment clarifies how tribunals should approach evidence of non-reoffending and personal reform when applying Article 8 and section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. It is particularly relevant to appeals involving long-term residents with serious criminal histories who argue that deportation no longer serves the public good.
Why Majera Matters
Deportation appeals often turn on a tension between two competing realities: the seriousness of past offending and the individual’s conduct since release.
Majera does not weaken the statutory public interest in deportation. Nor does it suggest that rehabilitation will often outweigh serious criminality. What it confirms is that rehabilitation is a relevant factor—but one that must be addressed with analytical discipline.
The Court of Appeal’s concern was not with sympathy or outcome, but with the quality of legal reasoning applied by the tribunal.
Deportation, Article 8, and the Public Interest
Section 117C and “Very Compelling Circumstances”
Section 117C establishes a strong presumption in favour of deportation for foreign criminals. Where a sentence of four years or more has been imposed, an appeal can succeed only where there are “very compelling circumstances” over and above the statutory exceptions.
This threshold is intentionally high. The public interest includes deterrence, public protection, and maintaining confidence in immigration control.
However, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the public interest is not one-dimensional.
Public Protection, Not Retrospective Punishment
A central point underlying Majera is that deportation law is forward-looking. While past offending is highly significant, the legal focus remains on whether removal is justified in light of current and future risk.
Rehabilitation and non-reoffending may therefore be relevant, because they can reduce the risk of future harm. The difficulty arises where tribunals assume this rather than explain it.
Rehabilitation as a Public Interest Factor
The Court of Appeal did not treat rehabilitation as marginal or irrelevant. It accepted that genuine reform can, in principle, reduce the weight of the public interest in deportation.
What it rejected was imprecise reasoning.
Rehabilitation is not a moral plea. It is an evidential question that must be addressed with structure and clarity.
Why Non-Reoffending Is a Public Good
The judgment implicitly recognises that non-reoffending itself serves the public interest. A person who no longer poses a realistic risk of harm does not automatically advance public protection simply by being removed.
However, this conclusion must be justified by evidence. The absence of further offending, even over a substantial period, is not self-explanatory.
Why Weak Reasoning Fails (Even with Strong Facts)
In Majera, the First-tier Tribunal placed significant weight on the appellant’s progress and lack of further offending. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside, and the Court of Appeal confirmed it was entitled to do so.
The issue was not that rehabilitation had been considered. The issue was that the reasoning lacked sufficient rigour.
The Court made clear that general assertions of reform are inadequate, optimism must be evidence-based, and conclusions must be anchored to the statutory framework.
Practical Lessons for Deportation and Revocation Cases
Evidence That Carries Weight
Rehabilitation evidence should be specific, sustained, and forward-looking. It must demonstrate why change has occurred and why it is likely to endure.
Relevant material may include structured programmes, professional assessments, stable employment, compliance with licence conditions, and credible support networks.
Common Mistakes in Rehabilitation Arguments
Common errors include relying solely on the passage of time, asserting change without explanation, and failing to confront the seriousness of past offending.
Majera confirms that tribunals expect both compassion and intellectual discipline.
What This Means for Future Article 8 Appeals
The decision does not close the door on rehabilitation-based arguments. It clarifies the standard they must meet.
For practitioners, the message is direct: rehabilitation can be powerful, but only where it is proved, explained, and legally contextualised.
Handled properly, non-reoffending speaks directly to the future public good. Handled loosely, it undermines the credibility of the appeal.