The claimant asylum seeker had been refused benefits having failed to declare his application on entry. The Secretary now appealed a finding that the decision was flawed. Was the treatment of the applicant inhuman or degrading?
Held: No simple test could be laid down, and each case is to be considered individually. The appeal court, having seen al the evidence was in a position to judge the situation just as much as was the judge at first instance. The conclusion reached did not follow from the evidence, and was set aside. It was not possible to find inhuman or degrading treatment in the circumstances of this case.
Judges:
Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1285, Times 09-Oct-2003, (2003) 7 CCLR 53
Links:
Statutes:
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55, European Convention on Human Rights 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council and others ex parte M, P, A and X CA 1997
Destitute asylum-seekers could derive benefit from section 21.
Held: ‘The destitute condition to which asylum-seekers can be reduced as a result of the 1996 Act coupled with the period of time which, despite the Secretary of State’s best . .
Cited – Regina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha CA 7-Sep-2000
The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The . .
Cited – O’Rourke v United Kingdom ECHR 26-Jun-2001
The applicant was a sex offender who on release from prison had found temporary accommodation from which he had been evicted for pestering female residents. He ignored advice to go to a night shelter whilst a decision on permanent re-housing was . .
Cited – East African Asians v United Kingdom ECHR 1973
(Commission) A group of Asian men, United Kingdom citizens, complained that, among other things, their Article 8 rights to respect for family life were infringed when they were refused permission to enter the United Kingdom to join their wives. The . .
Cited – Lorse and Others v The Netherlands ECHR 4-Feb-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to the first applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 with regard to the other applicants ; No violation of Art. 8 ; No violation of Art. 13 . .
Applied – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
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 by:
Cited – Regina (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 4-Feb-2004
The claimant had sought asylum on the day after arrival, and had therefore been refused any assistance beyond the provision of a list of charities who might assist. His lawyers were unable to secure either shelter or maintenance, and he had been . .
Cited – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL 3-Nov-2005
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Benefits, Human Rights
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.186380
