A B.C. man convicted of trafficking cocaine after an investigation into the East End Hells Angels has lost his bid to set aside a deportation order and remain in Canada.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an application from David Roger Revell for a judicial review of an immigration board decision to deport him to his native England.
Federal Appeal Court Justice Yves de Montigny rejected Revell’s arguments that his Charter rights were violated when a lower court judge upheld a 2016 ruling that “he was inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of serious criminality … and organized criminality.”
Revell, 55, came to Canada in 1974 at the age of 10. He never applied for citizenship.
He was a Hells Angels associate living in Kelowna when he was ensnared in the 2005 E-Pandora investigation into the East End chapter of the notorious biker gang.
In 2008, he was convicted of trafficking out of a car lot he owned and sentenced to five years in jail. He was acquitted on a charge of working for a criminal organization.
Then in 2013, he pleaded guilty to two assault charges in a domestic violence case involving a former girlfriend and was sentenced to two years probation.
The convictions led to a review of his permanent resident’s status in Canada, prompting Revell to argue to the Immigration and Refugee Board three years ago that he never would have pleaded guilty to assault if he had realized he might be forced to leave Canada.
The Immigration and Refugee Board issued a deportation order, which was upheld by the Federal Court of Canada in a 2017 ruling.
Revell again argued on appeal that deporting someone who had lived in Canada for decades to a country where they have no connections amounted to “cruel and unusual” punishment in violation of the Charter. And it infringed on his constitutional right to liberty and security, his lawyer said.
Revell, who works on an oil rig in Alberta, provided a psychologist’s report to the court that said “there can be no doubt that Mr. Revell’s enforced separation from his family by virtue of deportation would be devastating for him.”
“He is highly attached to his children and grandchildren, and a preponderance of his focus and recreation apparently revolves around the younger members of his family. Without his family he would be devoid of direction and purpose.”
De Montigny accepted that moving to England would be harsh, but still not a violation of Revell’s rights.
“I feel bound to conclude that the predicaments which Mr. Revell will face if deported to England, as harsh as they may be, do not amount to a deprivation of his right to security under section 7 of the Charter,” he found.
“Apart from the fact that he would leave behind his children, his grandchildren, and his partner, and that he is a ‘stranger’ to England, Mr. Revell has not established any particular circumstances that would go beyond the typical impacts of removal.”
De Montigny also rejected Revell’s claim that he wouldn’t have access to medical care in the United Kingdom.
“There is no evidence that any required medical care would not be available in England,” de Montigny said.
Justices David Stratas and David Near concurred with de Montigny.
The appeal was heard before the three-judge panel in Vancouver last January.