The court asked whether the evidence showed that the threshold of severity had been reached to turn the treatment of the applicant into an infringement of his human right not to suffer inhuman or degrading treatment. Having entered the UK with a view to applying for asylum, his application was delayed, and was at the same time both not allowed to work, and refused any kind of support.
Held: The court emphasised the need for claimants’ solicitors in such applications to provide detail of the conditions suffered by their cients. Whether the treatment wa sinfringing depended upon those details. ‘the majority of asylum seekers are likely to share all, and if not all the majority, of the following circumstances: (1) having no home, (2) having no source of income, (3) having few or no possessions, (4) having little or no money, (5) being total strangers to the United Kingdom, (6) having little or no command of the English language, (7) being lonely, disorientated and anxious about their position and their welfare and/or (8) being vulnerable to bad elements present in society. That list is not intended to be comprehensive, there are no doubt other common factors which regularly come into play. The extent to which these circumstances are shown to affect an individual claimant, will be central to the question whether the threshold of severity has been reached.’
Newman J
[2004] EWHC 91 (Admin)
Bailii
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.193505
