The applicant entered the UK illegally. She was unwell and was given treatment. She resisted removal on the grounds that the treatment available to her would be of such a quality as to leave her life threatened.
Held: D -v- UK should be strictly confined. The applicant’s condition was not one created by the respondent, and did not result from any mistreatment. ‘where the complaint in essence is of want of resources in the applicant’s home country (in contrast to what has been available to him in the country from which he is to be removed) is only justified where the humanitarian appeal of the case is so powerful that it could not in reason be resisted by the authorities of a civilised State.’
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Carnwath
 EWCA Civ 1369, Times 23-Oct-2003
European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Strictly Confined – D v United Kingdom ECHR 1997
In the circumstances of the case, where the applicant was in the advanced stage of a terminal illness (AIDS), to implement a decision by the respondent to remove the appellant to St Kitts in the West Indies would be a violation of his rights under . .
Cited – Ahsan Ullah, Thi Lien Do v Special Adjudicator, Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Dec-2002
The appellants challenged refusal of asylum, claiming that their return to countries which did not respect their religion, would infringe their right to freedom of religious expression. It was accepted that the applicants did not have a sufficient . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Cited – Tyrer v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Apr-1978
Three strokes with a birch constituted degrading punishment for a 15-year-old boy, which violated article 3 having regard to the particular circumstances in which it was administered.
Preliminary objection rejected (disappearance of object of . .
Cited – B B v France ECHR 7-Sep-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (solution of the matter)
The applicant came from the Congo. He came to France, where he was a failed asylum seeker and a convicted drug . .
Cited – Bensaid v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Feb-2001
The applicant was a schizophrenic and an illegal immigrant. He claimed that his removal to Algeria would deprive him of essential medical treatment and sever ties that he had developed in the UK that were important for his well-being. He claimed . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Henao v Netherlands ECHR 24-Jun-2003
The applicant was a national of Colombia. While serving a prison sentence in Holland for a drugs offence he was diagnosed HIV-positive. He sought to resist expulsion to Columbia on Article 3 grounds.
Held: ‘ . . the Court considers that, . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.187005