The appellants challenged refusal of asylum, claiming that their return to countries which did not respect their religion, would infringe their right to freedom of religious expression. It was accepted that the applicants did not have a sufficient well founded fear of persecution in the general sense.
Held: The Convention had come to regulate in part how signatory countries controlled their immigration, but controlled signatory states as to their treatment of those within their jurisdiction only. The right to control immigration might trump the human rights of those whose movement was to be controlled. The claimants sought the right to practise and preach their religions freely. The extension of Convention rights conflicted with the principle of territoriality, and had only been allowed for article 3. The present court was not required to take it further for article 9 where the interference in the exercise of that right fell short of being article 3 ill-treatment.
‘a removal decision to a country that does not respect article 9 rights will not infringe the 1998 Act where the nature of the interference with the right to practise religion that is anticipated in the receiving state falls short of article 3 ill-treatment. It may be that this does not differ greatly, in effect, from holding that interference with the right to practise religion in such circumstances will not result in the engagement of the Convention unless the interference is ‘flagrant’.’
References: Times 18-Dec-2002, Gazette 13-Mar-2003,  1 WLR 770,  EWCA Civ 1856,  3 All ER 1174,  UKHRR 302,  Imm AR 304,  ACD 30,  INLR 74,  HRLR 12
Judges: Lord Justice Kay, Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Phillips MR
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights Art 3 Art 9, Human Rights Act 1998
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989 (14038/88, (1989) 11 EHRR 439, ,  ECHR 14, , ECLI:CE:ECHR:1989:0707JUD001403888)
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
- Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985 (9214/80, 9473/81, 9474/80, (1985) 7 EHRR 471, ,  ECHR 7)
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
- Cited – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001 (44599/98, (2001) 33 EHRR 205, (2001) 33 EHRR 10,  ECHR 82, ,  INLR 325, 11 BHRC 297)
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – N v the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Oct-2003 ( EWCA Civ 1369, Times 23-Oct-03)
The applicant entered the UK illegally. She was unwell and was given treatment. She resisted removal on the grounds that the treatment available to her would be of such a quality as to leave her life threatened.
Held: D -v- UK should be . .
- Cited – Quark Fishing Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Admn 22-Jul-2003 (,  EWHC 1743 (Admin))
The respondent had failed to renew the claimant’s license to fish in the South Atlantic for Patagonian Toothfish. The refusal had been found to be unlawful. The claimant now sought damages.
Held: English law does not generally provide a remedy . .
- Appeal from – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004 (,  UKHL 26, , Times 18-Jun-04,  3 WLR 23,  2 AC 323,  INLR 381,  UKHRR 995,  3 All ER 785)
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
- Cited – Re J (A Child), Re (Child returned abroad: Convention Rights); (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) HL 16-Jun-2005 (,  UKHL 40, , Times 17-Jun-05,  1 AC 80,  2 WLR 14)
The parents had married under shariah law. They left the US to return to the father’s home country Saudi Arabia. They parted, and the mother brought their son to England against the father’s wishes and in breach of an agreement. The father sought . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.178442