Contention that the SSHD, had issued unlawful statutory Guidance, and policies, albeit for the lawful purpose of preventing those who are more vulnerable to harm in immigration detention from entering immigration detention, or for removing them from it, unless there are sufficiently strong countervailing reasons. Being a victim of torture is an indicator of such vulnerability. The unlawfulness is said to arise from the way in which victims of torture are defined, through the adoption, with a variation, of the definition of ‘torture’ to be found in the United Nations Convention against Torture, UNCAT. This had the effect, it was said, of excluding those who are victims of torture by non-state actors, from those whose circumstances indicate vulnerability to harm in detention.
Ouseley J set out the history of the provisions and noted that: ‘The reference to acts carried out by terrorist groups is not part of the UNCAT definition, but was added following discussions between the SSHD and an NGO, Freedom from Torture; it was suggested by Sir Keir Starmer MP.’
Judges:
Ouseley J
Citations:
[2017] EWHC 2461 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 654
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor, Regina v SC 13-Nov-2019
(Redacted) The court was asked to consider the meaning of ‘torture’ from events in a rebellion in Liberia in 1990. The CACD certified the following point of law of general public importance: ‘What is the correct interpretation of the term ‘person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.598394