R v Bouchereau
A previous criminal conviction can justify deportation on public policy grounds only if it is evidence of personal conduct that is a present threat to the requirements of public policy.
Facts
Mr Bouchereau, a French national working in England, was convicted of possession of drugs for the second time. The magistrates were considering recommending his deportation. He argued that a deportation order would breach EU law, because the convictions alone were not a sufficient ground.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the existence of a previous criminal conviction can only be taken into account in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy. Recourse by a national authority to the concept of public policy presupposes the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. In some cases, past conduct alone may be enough, if it was particularly serious.
Related cases on free movement of workers
- Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgium Joined Cases 115/81 and 116/81, [1982] ECR 1665
- Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Case 344/87, [1989] ECR 1621
- Bonsignore v Oberstadtdirektor der Stadt Köln Case 67/74, [1975] ECR 297
- Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Case C-138/02, [2004] ECR I-2703
- Commission v Belgium (Public service) Case 149/79, [1980] ECR 3881
- Groener v Minister for Education Case 379/87, [1989] ECR 3967
- Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Case 139/85, [1986] ECR 1741
- Kraus v Land Baden-Württemberg Case C-19/92, [1993] ECR I-1663
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
