The claimants were subject to intended deportation to Libya. The said that if returned they would be likely to be tortured, and that accordingly the return would infringe their rights. The Home Secretary said that a memorandum of understanding existed with the Libyan government which would protect the men on return.
Held: Proper proof, going beyond speculation, was required to establish that the risk existed and was substantial.
Judges:
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Buxton and Lady Justice Smith
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 289, Times 16-Apr-2008
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Cited – Saadi v Italy (United Kingdom intervening) ECHR 28-Feb-2008
(Grand Chamber) When considering the appropriateness of a deportation order to a country with which the deporting country had a memorandum of understanding that the destination country would not torture the deportee, a court must look beyond the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266515