The case of Hariri had set too high the threshold for the level of threat which would need to apply as to the propriety of returning an asylum applicant to his home country. The correct test is that the applicant need show a ‘real risk’ of har. This is a lower standard than one of ‘probability’ as described in Hariri.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Sedley Mr Justice Munby
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1489
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Clarified – Hariri v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 23-May-2003
It would be inappropriate to order the return of a failed asylum seeker to a country where there was a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violation of fundamental human rights. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Kpangni) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 21-Apr-2005
The asylum seeker appealed rejection of her request not to be returned home. The decision letter had applied the test under Hariri.
Held: The decision letter invoked the wrong test. Since the Hariri case the case of Batayav had clarified the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.187502
