The two applicants appealed refusal of their applications for asylum. They had been former members of the communist party in Lithuania. Both had experienced persecution. The IAT had found that the constitution guaranteed them protection. Though they might be subject to ill treatment from individual officers their treatment would be no more harsh than any other prisoner. The allegation was of abuse by a state agent in the form of systematic and tolerated misbehaviour by officers, and that an effective failure to control such behaviour can amount to persecution. One applicant, having been detained for weeks without judicial protection, had had his human rights infringed.
Held: The proper question was whether as a member of the Communist Party in custody, he faced particular treatment which amounted to persecution for a Convention reason, and was treatment by state agents which the state could not control. The IAT had asked the wrong question, and the cases would be remitted for rehearing.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Citations:
Times 26-Feb-2002, Gazette 15-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 74, [2002] 1 WLR 1891
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Cited – Januzi 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167536
