The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to investigate whether the treatment which the applicants reasonably fear would infringe a recognised human right. There is no extant legal rule or principle which creates a right of absolute conscientious objection, such that where it is not respected, a good case to refugee status under the Convention may arise. Treatment is not persecutory if it is treatment meted out to all and is not discriminatory.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Citations:
[2003] UKHL 15, Times 21-Mar-2003, Gazette 09-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 856, [2003] 3 All ER 304, [2003] Imm AR 428, 14 BHRC 238, [2003] INLR 322
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Adan, Same, ex parte Aitsegeur HL 20-Dec-2000
The Convention gave protection to an asylum seeker fearing persecution by non-state agents in his country of origin where that government was unable or unwilling to provide protection. France and Germany did not recognise this right, and therefore . .
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Shah and Others CA 23-Jul-1997
Even the justified fears of being stoned to death for adultery did not create a particular separate group from which protection from persecution could be claimed in support of an application for asylum. A ‘social group’ for refugee applicants, had . .
Cited – Regina v The Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Rajendrakumar CA 11-Oct-1995
The three Tamil applicants had left the area of Sri Lanka controlled by the Tamil Tigers and gone to live in Colombo. It was asserted that in Colombo they had a well-founded fear of persecution because they were young male Tamils and were therefore . .
Cited – 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 . .
Adopted – Sivakumar v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-Jul-2001
The applicant for asylum was a Tamil. He was persecuted. He claimed it was political. The possibility of drawing that inference was greater when legal mis-treatment was not expected to be followed by legal proceedings. Excessive or arbitrary . .
Appeal from – Yasin Sepet and Erdem Bulbul v Secretary of State for Home Department (UNCHR Intervening) CA 11-May-2001
The fear of being punished for refusing to be drafted into a country’s defence forces, where the claimant would be a conscientious objector, and the right to such objections would not be recognised, was not sufficient to justify an application for . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Yasin Sepet and Erdem Bulbul v Secretary of State for Home Department (UNCHR Intervening) CA 11-May-2001
The fear of being punished for refusing to be drafted into a country’s defence forces, where the claimant would be a conscientious objector, and the right to such objections would not be recognised, was not sufficient to justify an application for . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court Admn 7-Oct-2004
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector.
Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was . .
Cited – Hoxha and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Mar-2005
The claimants sought to maintain their claims for asylum. They had fled persecution, but before their claims for asylum were determined conditions in their home country changed so that they could no longer be said to have a well founded fear of . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v K, Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought asylum, fearing persecution as members of a social group. The fear of persecution had been found to be well founded, but that persecution was seen not to arise from membership of a particular social group.
Held: The . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Cited – HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for The Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same SC 7-Jul-2010
The claimants sought to prevent their removal and return to their countries of origin saying that as practising homosexuals they would face discrimination and persecution. They appealed against a judgment saying that they could avoid persecution by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.179983
