The appellant had entered the UK as a visitor on regular occasions and latterly had used false passport. She was then convicted of supplying Class A drugs, and ordered to be deported. She had children who also were in the UK, and did not wish to be separated from them, and was afraid of violence against her if she was returned to Jamaica The adjudicator had failed to make a determination on her claim under article 8, and the IAT had declined to allow an appeal.
Held: It was wrong not to hear the point. She had the right to make the claim, and had the right to have it determined. There was clear evidence that the state might be unable to protect her from an individual. There was a change in the law between the adjudicator’s decision and the IAT decision whereby someone breaching an order under the Jamaican Domestic Violence Act might be imprisoned. A state could not be required to guarantee the safety of an individual, but some judgement had to be made. Appeal allowed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Sedley and Lady Justice Arden
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1955, [2002] INLR 139
Links:
Statutes:
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 65
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bari 1986
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.167311