ST Eritrea, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Mar 2012

The Tribunal had confirmed the appellant’s refugee status, but the respondent had ordered nevertheless that she be returned. The judge’s order setting aside that decision had been overturned in the Court of Appeal.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The Convention set two standards of protection for refugees. Article 33 prevented the return of anyone to a situation where his life or freedom would be threatened. Where a refugee was here lawfully, then, under Article 32, there was a requirement first to show grounds of national security or public order. The Court was now asked whether the words ‘lawfully present in the territory’ were to be given a meaning extended so that an applicant who had not yet been given a right to remain, had protection by Article 32 over and above that given under Article 33. There were however, no sound grounds for departing from the view that ‘lawfully’ in Article 32(1) must be taken to refer to what is to be treated as lawful according to the domestic laws of the contracting state.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson
[2012] UKSC 12
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 32 33
England and Wales
CitedSzoma v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions HL 28-Jul-2005
The applicant had claimed asylum on entry and was temporarily admitted. Though his claim for asylum was later refused, those admitted in this way were granted indefinite leave to remain. He had claimed and received benefits at first, but then these . .
At first instanceTesfamichael v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 19-Dec-2008
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to return her to Eritea despite a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that she should be given leave to remain as a refugee.
Held: The application succeeded, and ordered the . .
Appeal fromSecretary of State for The Home Department v ST (Eritrea) CA 9-Jun-2010
The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring him to recognise the respondent as a refugee and to grant permissions accordingly. His ddecision to order her return had been contrary to a finding of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay HL 19-Feb-1986
Three applicants had lied on entry to secure admission, stayed for a considerable time, and had been treated as illegal immigrants under section 33(1). The fourth’s claim that upon being returned he would been killed, had been rejected without . .
CitedStott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) and Another v Brown PC 5-Dec-2000
The system under which the registered keeper of a vehicle was obliged to identify herself as the driver, and such admission was to be used subsequently as evidence against her on a charge of driving with excess alcohol, was not a breach of her right . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others HL 9-Dec-2004
Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders
The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Thangarasa; Same Ex parte Yogathas HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicants were asylum seekers who had been ordered to be returned to Germany, the country to which they had first escaped, for their asylum claims to be dealt with. They objected, asserting that Germany would not deal with their applications in . .
CitedHoxha 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 . .
CitedJanuzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others HL 15-Feb-2006
The claimants sought to challenge the refusals of asylum in each case based upon the possibility of internal relocation. They said that such internal relocation would place them in areas where they could not be expected to live without undue . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Musisi HL 1987
Mr Musisi sought entry to the United Kingdom as a visitor from Kenya. When that application looked as though it might fail, he claimed political asylum as a refugee from Uganda. His application for asylum was refused on the basis that he had come . .
CitedT v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-May-1996
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated . .
CitedHorvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 2-Dec-1999
The degree of protection from non-state persecution available to an asylum seeker, is a relevant factor in asylum applications. Where that protection was inadequate, for reasons not related to the nature of that persecution, that also was relevant. . .
CitedHorvath 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 . .
CitedAdan v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 6-Apr-1998
A fear of persecution which was justified only historically, was insufficient to justify an asylum claim. The applicant must show justification for contemporary fears. The applicant had been granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK, but wanted . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Human Rights

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.452188