The degree of protection from non-state persecution available to an asylum seeker, is a relevant factor in asylum applications. Where that protection was inadequate, for reasons not related to the nature of that persecution, that also was relevant. It affected the issues of whether persecution existed, whether the fear of it was well founded, and whether the fear of persecution made the protection of the state unavailable. A state cannot always guarantee the safety of its citizens. If the matter of protection is treated simply as an aspect of assessing the existence of a real risk of an abuse of rights, asylum would be granted even although there was . . a reasonable level of state protection. But that would be contrary to the basic intention of the Convention. The sufficiency of State protection is not measured by the existence of a real risk of an abuse of rights but by the availability of a system for the protection of the citizen and a reasonable willingness by the state to operate it.
Judges:
Stuart-Smith LJ, Ward LJ, Hale LJ
Citations:
Gazette 07-Jan-2000, [1999] EWCA Civ 3026, [2000] Imm AR 205, [2000] INLR 15
Links:
Statutes:
Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 1A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 7-Jul-2000
When considering the fear of prosecution in an applicant for asylum, the degree of persecution expected from individuals outside the government was to be assessed in the context also of the attitude of the government of the country to such . .
Cited – ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Mar-2012
The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81478
