D v The United Kingdom: ECHR 2 May 1997

The applicant, an AIDS sufferer, resisted his removal to St Kitts where lack of medical treatment would hasten his death.
Held: The deportation of a convicted person suffering from Aids to a country with less care facilities was inhuman or degrading treatment. ‘In its Vilvarajah and Others judgment and its Soering judgment the Court considered judicial review proceedings to be an effective remedy in relation to the complaints raised under Article 3 in the contexts of deportation and extradition. It was satisfied that English courts could effectively control the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate. It was also accepted that a court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review would have power to quash a decision to expel or deport an individual to a country where it was established that there was a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, on the ground that in all the circumstances of the case the decision was one that no reasonable Secretary of State could take.
The applicant maintained that the effectiveness of the remedy invoked first before the High Court and subsequently before the Court of Appeal was undermined on account of their failure to conduct an independent scrutiny of the facts in order to determine whether they disclosed a real risk that he would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on the reasoning in the Chahal v United Kingdom judgment. However the Court notes that in that case the domestic courts were precluded from reviewing the factual basis underlying the national security considerations invoked by the Home Secretary to justify the expulsion of Mr Chahal. No such considerations arise in the case at issue.’
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3; Not necessary to examine Art. 2; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings


Times 12-May-1997, (1997) 2 BHRC 273, 146/1996/767/964, (1997) 24 EHRR 423, 30240/96, [1997] ECHR 25, (1998) 42 BMLR 149


Worldlii, Bailii


European Convention on Human Rights Art 3

Cited by:

CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department, Regina on the Application of Soumahoro; Regina on the Application of Nadarajah; and similar CA 19-Jun-2003
In each case asylum applicants had been certified as suitable to be returned to the first country at which they had arrived on fleeing their home countries.
Held: To determine whether article 8 was engaged given the territoriality principle, . .
CitedEM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
CitedTN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 24-Jun-2015
The appellants, children from Afghanistan whose asylum claims had been rejected, challenged the sufficiency of the appellate process, and the respondents obligations for family tracing.
Held: The appeals failed. An applicant could not claim, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165491