SXH v Crown Prosecution Service: CA 6 Feb 2014

The claimant challenged being charged with an offence under the 2006 Act, saying that it engaged and interfered with her Article 8 Human Rights. A Somali national, she fled, claiming asylum here, but her travel documents were found to be false. All agreed that she could not have obtained valid documents in Somalia.
Held: Her appeal failed.
Pitchford LJ reviewed the authorities and accepted that article 8 could apply to a law criminalising behaviour which itself amounted to the exercise of a right protected by article 8, but section 25 of the 2006 Act did not interfere with rights protected by that article. It did not impede the appellant’s ability to claim asylum, and the possession of false identity documentation with intent to deceive at the point of border control was not an expression of personal autonomy.
He accepted that a decision to prosecute for an offence under section 25 might fall within article 8 if, for example, the prosecutor knew that there was no proper basis for the prosecution, but article 8 was not engaged by a decision to prosecute for a Convention-compliant offence in the absence of extreme circumstances. If, however, article 8 was engaged, the concession made that the appellant’s case passed the evidential test meant that in the absence of compelling circumstances personal to the appellant the public interest in prosecution was obvious. The outcome would be a matter for judicial decision and it was not for the prosecutor, when deciding to prosecute, to concern herself with questions of remand or likely sentence, which would be for the court to determine. He concluded therefore that if article 8 was engaged, there was no breach.

Pitchford LJ, Beatson LJ, Gloster LJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 90, [2014] 1 WLR 3238, [2014] WLR(D) 53
Bailii, WLRD
Identity Cards Act 2006 25, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 31
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromSXH v The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) SC 11-Apr-2017
The Court was asked: ‘Does a decision by a public prosecutor to bring criminal proceedings against a person fall potentially within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where a) the prosecutor has . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.521051