The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that paragraph 3(2)(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act was incompatible with Article 3. The clause was said to restrict the Home Secretary from considering anything beyond the country guidance applicable to the case when deciding whether to order the failed asylum applicant’s return. The applicant said that if returned to Greece his human rights concerns at being then returned to Afghanistan would not be considered.
Held: The Secretary’s appeal succeeded. The clause was not an absolute bar to consideration of other matters and evidence. However ‘I will not leave the case without making clear my view that the list system renders the United Kingdom’s compliance with ECHR Article 3 fragile. In the absence of individual examinations of the merits of individual cases by those responsible for specific executive and judicial decisions in those cases, the whole weight of compliance falls on the measures and systems in place for monitoring law and practice in the listed States, and does so in circumstances where government has no discretion to take a State off the list, but must seek main legislation. ‘
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 464, Times 20-May-2008, [2008] INLR 668, [2008] UKHRR 863, [2008] 3 WLR 1386, [2009] 1 All ER 116
Links:
Statutes:
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, European Convention on Human Rights 3, Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, the Dublin II Regulations
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Nasseri v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 2-Jul-2007
The applicant had sought and been refused asylum. He was found to have come via Greece, and steps were put in place to return him there. He now complained that the provision which allowed no discretion to the respondent to look at his case when the . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
Cited – Assenov and Others v Bulgaria ECHR 28-Oct-1998
An allegation of violence by a police officer did require a thorough, impartial and careful investigation by a suitable and independent state authority: ‘The court considers that in these circumstances, where an individual raises an arguable claim . .
Cited – Banks v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2007
The applicants complained of maltreatment by prison officers in breach of article 3. The matter had been investigated by the Crown Prosecution Service which had decided not to prosecute. Civil proceedings had been raised and settled. The applicants . .
Cited – Taylor v Lancashire County Council and others CA 17-Mar-2005
The tenant occupied his farm under a lease limiting his use of the farm. He was found to be trading in breach of his covenant and a notice to quit was issued and possession sought. He argued that the 1986 Act was discriminatory and inadequate to . .
Cited – TI v United Kingdom ECHR 7-Mar-2000
The Dublin II Regulation did not absolve the United Kingdom from responsibility to ensure that a decision to expel an asylum seeker to another Member State did not expose him, at one remove, to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. ‘In . .
Cited – Jabari v Turkey ECHR 11-Jul-2000
A ‘rigorous scrutiny’ was to be conducted of a claim that an individual’s deportation to a third country would expose him to treatment prohibited by Article 3, before it could be rejected.
Held: ‘If the State is to avoid breach of Article 3 by . .
Cited – In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) HL 14-Mar-2002
Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act is not available where the suggested interpretation is contrary to express statutory words or is by implication necessarily contradicted by the statute. The judge’s task is to interpret, not to legislate. The proposed . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Cited – KRS v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Dec-2008
Admissibility – The applicant’s claim for asylum had failed, and he challeged the decision to return him to Greece, the point of entry to the EU, saying that he would be at risk if so returned.
Held: The United Kingdom would not breach its . .
Cited – EM (Eritrea), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 19-Feb-2014
SSHD must examine safety of country for return
The Court was asked: ‘Is an asylum seeker or refugee who resists his or her return from the United Kingdom to Italy (the country in which she or he first sought or was granted asylum) required to establish that there are in Italy ‘systemic . .
At Court of Appeal – Nasseri v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Sep-2013
Questions set for the parties . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Immigration
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267656
