Category:Repatriation cases
See also the page on Repatriation.
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Immigration FXJ v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1531 (QB) — "The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Respondent owes a duty of care in tort to the Appellant in circumstances where a delay before withdrawing an appeal against a decision as to immigration status had exacerbated the Appellant's mental health condition thereby leading to his hospitalisation." | 2023‑03‑17 11:28:05 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022/06/20 cases
|
| * Immigration, capacity and marriage Navaraththinam v Entry Clearance Officer Colombo [2021] UKAITUR HU135462019 — The appellant challenged the judge's rejection of his appeal against entry clearance refusal. The Upper Tribunal held that: (1) the judge's comments on the sponsor's capacity were consistent with the presumption of capacity (despite misgivings); (2) in any event, the judge came to her conclusions on the genuineness and subsistence of the appellant's marriage (which began with a foreign ceremony in which the sponsor had given her communication via emojis and continued without any romantic relationship) without factoring into that what she had concluded or failed to conclude about capacity. | 2021‑05‑21 19:33:20 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/04/22 cases
|
| * Unlawful immigration detention AO v Home Office [2021] EWHC 1043 (QB) — Some arguments in this immigration case involved the claimant's mental health. | 2021‑05‑01 21:19:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/04/30 cases
|
| * Insanity legislation and foreign criminals SSHD v MZ [2020] UKUT 225 (IAC) — A person sentenced to a hospital order following a finding under CPIA 1964 s5(1)(b) that he "is under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him" is not subject to s117C Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ("Article 8: additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals") or paragraphs A398-399 (also concerning deportation of foreign criminals) of the Immigration Rules. | 2020‑07‑20 22:39:33 | 2020 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020/03/17 cases
|
| * Immigration tribunal - fair hearing, litigation friends AM (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1123 — In this judgment the Court of Appeal gave guidance on the general approach to be adopted in FTT and UT immigration and asylum cases to the fair determination of claims for asylum from children, young people and other incapacitated or vulnerable persons whose ability to effectively participate in proceedings may be limited. In relation to litigation friends, despite there being no provision in the tribunal rules for litigation friends, the court decided that: "[T]here is ample flexibility in the tribunal rules to permit a tribunal to appoint a litigation friend in the rare circumstance that the child or incapacitated adult would not be able to represent him/herself and obtain effective access to justice without such a step being taken. In the alternative, even if the tribunal rules are not broad enough to confer that power, the overriding objective in the context of natural justice requires the same conclusion to be reached." | 2019‑07‑26 20:29:51 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/07/27 cases
|
| * Immigration detention R (ASK) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1239 — "These appeals raise important issues concerning the powers of the Respondent Secretary of State to detain those who suffer from mental health conditions pending removal from the United Kingdom. In each case, the Appellant is a foreign national who satisfied the statutory criteria for detention pending removal, but who suffered from mental illness such that it is said that, for at least some of the period he was detained, he was not only unfit to be removed and/or detained in an immigration removal centre ("IRC"), but did not have mental capacity to challenge his detention and/or engage with the procedures to which he was subject as a detainee. As a result, it is submitted that, in detaining each Appellant, the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in one or more of the following ways. ..." | 2019‑07‑17 10:17:55 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/07/16 cases
|
| * Litigation friends for children in immigration tribunal proceedings R (JS) v SSHD [2019] UKUT 64 (IAC) — The Upper Tribunal provided mainly age-based guidance on whether a child applicant in immigration proceedings requires a litigation friend, and on the role of the litigation friend. | 2019‑02‑21 14:41:38 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Litigation friend cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/01/11 cases
|
| * Damages for unlawful immigration detention R (Adegun) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 22 (Admin) — "There are two bases of challenge to Mr Adegun's detention which, in broad outline, are as follows. ... There is first an issue, which I shall call the "rule 34 issue", as to whether Mr Adegun declined a medical examination pursuant to rule 34 of the Detention Centre Rules when he was taken into detention. ... The second issue I shall call the "paragraph 55.10 issue". It arises because there is evidence, not disputed by the Secretary of State, that Mr Adegun was suffering from a mental health condition which was not recognised by the Home Office until some time after his admission into detention and was not treated with medication until 19 January 2016. ... I therefore propose to award nominal damages in respect of the early period of Mr Adegun's detention and substantial damages in respect of 40 days' detention." | 2019‑01‑12 22:58:23 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019/01/10 cases
|
| * Extradition Cash v Court of First Instance, Strasbourg, France [2018] EWHC 579 (Admin) — "At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 March 2018 I allowed the Appellant's appeal and quashed the extradition order made by District Judge Grant on 15 March 2017. I did so on the grounds that it would be unjust and oppressive to extradite the Appellant because he is currently unfit to stand trial and is seriously mentally ill with paranoid schizophrenia, and thus the judge should have decided that extradition is barred by s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003." | 2018‑03‑28 21:58:14 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018/03/21 cases
|
| * Extradition LMN v Government of Turkey [2018] EWHC 210 (Admin) — "It would be unlawful for this country to extradite the appellant to Turkey if he would there face a real risk of being treated in a manner which breached his Article 3 right not to be "subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment": see R (Ullah) v Special Immigration Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323B. It is for the appellant to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if extradited, he will face such a risk; and the ill-treatment must reach a minimum level of severity before Article 3 would be breached. Given that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture, the respondent is entitled to rely on the presumption that the Turkish authorities will protect prisoners against breaches of their Article 3 rights. Mr Josse has not invited this court to decide the appeal on the basis of findings about the Turkish prison system as a whole, and in any event there is no evidence which would enable the court to do so. ... There are in my judgment two key aspects of the evidence relating to the Article 3 issue: the expert evidence as to the appellant's mental health; and the expert evidence as to prison conditions in Turkey following the attempted coup. ... In those circumstances, I accept the expert evidence now available as establishing that the appellant is presently suffering from a recognised medical condition, namely severe depressive episode; that he also presents some features of PTSD; that he is currently prescribed antidepressant medication, and in receipt of regular psychological counselling; that there is a continuing need for coordinated care management; and that there is a high risk of suicide in the event of extradition. ... The further evidence now before the court shows, as I have indicated, a continuing need for medication and healthcare. The appellant has very plainly raised the issues of whether his healthcare needs would in fact be met, and whether the healthcare which is in principle available in Turkish prisons would in fact be available to the appellant in the context of the greatly-increased prison population. There is simply no evidence that such care will be available to him. ... In my judgment, taking into account the risk of suicide, a failure to meet the mental healthcare needs of the appellant would in the circumstances of this case attain the minimum standard of severity necessary to breach his Article 3 rights. ... It follows that his extradition would not be compatible with Article 3 or with section 87 of the 2003 Act." | 2018‑02‑09 20:44:58 | 2018 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018/02/09 cases
|
| * Immigration detention R (VC) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 57 — "There are broadly two questions before the court in this appeal. The first concerns the application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department's policy governing the detention under the Immigration Act 1971 of persons who have a mental illness, and the consequences if she is found not to have applied that policy correctly. The second concerns the adequacy at common law and under the Equality Act 2010 of the procedures under which mentally ill detainees can make representations on matters relating to their detention." | 2018‑02‑02 23:41:30 | 2018 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018/02/02 cases
|
| * Deportation following hospital order SSHD v KE (Nigeria) [2017] EWCA Civ 1382 — "This is an appeal [which] gives rise to the narrow, but important, issue as to whether a non-British citizen who is convicted and sentenced to a hospital order with restrictions under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is 'a foreign criminal who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years' for the purposes of section 117C(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that the public interest requires his deportation unless there are very compelling circumstances that mean that it would be a disproportionate interference with his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to deport him." | 2017‑09‑20 21:35:34 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/09/19 cases
|
| * Article 3 immigration case BA v SSHD [2017] UKAITUR IA343212013 — "The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria born on 26th February 1980. His appeal against a refusal to vary leave was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese on Article 8 grounds on 23 rd May 2016. ... The Appellant sought permission to appeal against the Article 3 findings only ... On the basis of the factual findings, the opinion in the Amnesty International Report and the opinion of Dr Bell, the Appellant is likely to suffer a breakdown at some point on return to Nigeria whether that be at the airport or some time later. He is likely to come to the attention of the police if he has such a breakdown and he would not be able to access the psychiatric hospital in Lagos because he is unable to afford treatment there. Accordingly, it is likely that he would be held in prison where the conditions for this particular Appellant with his particular condition would result in treatment in breach of Article 3. ... The Applicant would not be at risk of Article 3 treatment because of a heightened risk of suicide. He would, however, be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 because of the conditions of return. ... The medical evidence indicates that the Appellant is vulnerable to relapse even in the UK and without the threat of removal. His removal to Nigeria is likely to trigger a relapse and his behaviour will draw hostile attention. His treatment by the authorities in detaining him under the Lunacy Act 1958 would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. There is a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be detained in a prison, there would be no treatment for his mental health, his situation would deteriorate, the length of detention is indeterminate, there is no right of appeal and there is no requirement for him to consent to treatment. Accordingly, I allow the Appellant's appeal on Article 3 grounds." | 2017‑07‑11 18:05:39 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/05/12 cases
|
| * Extradition Korcala v Polish Judicial Authority [2017] EWHC 167 (Admin) — "This extradition appeal involves essentially two questions: (i) If a person has been found incapable of committing a criminal offence in the country in which he was tried because of mental illness, but has been ordered to be detained indefinitely in a mental hospital, has he been 'convicted' for the purposes of Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ('EA')? (ii) If that person then flees the mental hospital and is wanted for a prosecution for that offence, would there be an equivalent offence if the events had taken place in England so that the double criminality requirement is satisfied and the offence qualifies as an 'extradition offence'?" | 2017‑05‑10 12:41:50 | 2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/02/07 cases
|
| * Immigration detention R (ASK) v SSHD [2017] EWHC 196 (Admin) — "The issue in this case concerns an allegation that in 2013 the Claimant - 'ASK' - was unlawfully detained in an Immigration Removal Centre pending removal from the United Kingdom and, once he was definitively declared unfit to fly, detained for an unreasonably long period of time before eventual transfer to a psychiatric unit. I was told that there are a growing number of similar cases before the Courts. The case raises a number of issues. First, the implications of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of O) (by her litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 19M and the change that it has brought to the law relating to detention, in the light of R (Das) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mind and another intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 45B. In O v SSHD the Supreme Court modified the test for when a person awaiting removal could be detained in a detention centre by rejecting the view of the Court of Appeal in Das that the Defendant was not required to take account of the possibility that a detainee would receive better care and treatment in a psychiatric unit relative to that available in the IRC. Second, the extent of the duty on the Secretary of State to make inquiries as to a person's mental health before she transfers an immigration over-stayer to an IRC and whether it is sufficient to complete the medical assessment only once the person has been detained? Third, whether there is a duty upon IRC caseworkers when they complete their records to refer expressly to HO policy and the questions they need to address and whether the omission of such information or entries in recorded form has significance in law? Fourth, how a court is to assess the point in time at which a detainee must be treated as definitively unfit to fly for the purpose of determining when an otherwise legitimate rationale of detention for the purpose of removal ends? Fifth, once a decision is taken that a detainee must be transferred to a psychiatric unit under the Mental Health Act 1983 what is meant by'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000013D-QINU`"'prompt'"`UNIQ--nowiki-0000013E-QINU`"' transfer and in particular what happens if there is disagreement between the transferring clinicians who issue certificates under sections 47 and 48 MHA 1983 and the receiving clinician(s) to whom the IRC wishes to transfer and entrust the detainee? Sixth, how the Court should evaluate different types of evidence including: caseworkers reviews and notes, contemporaneous clinical notes and reports, and subsequent (ex post facto) expert reports which rely upon earlier notes and clinical reports." | 2017‑02‑09 21:04:48 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/02/09 cases
|
| * Immigration ARF v SSHD [2017] EWHC 10 (QB) — Unlawful immigration detention. | 2017‑01‑22 21:20:58 | 2017 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/01/12 cases
|
| R (O) v SSHD [2016] UKSC 19, [2016] MHLO 12 — "The appellant, O, is a woman of Nigerian nationality, aged 38. In November 2003, with her son, then aged three, she illegally entered the UK. In July 2008 she pleaded guilty to offences of cruelty towards her son, who had returned to live in Nigeria, and the court sentenced her to 12 months' imprisonment and recommended that she be deported. On 8 August 2008 her sentence came to an end, whereupon the respondent, the Home Secretary, detained her - at first pending the making of a deportation order and then, following the making of such an order, pending her deportation pursuant to it. O's detention, which was at the Immigration Removal Centre at Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire, continued until 6 July 2011 when, pursuant to a grant of bail on 1 July 2011, she was released. It follows that O was detained at Yarl's Wood for almost three years. The court knows nothing about her circumstances after 6 July 2011 but infers that she has not, or not yet, been deported. ... In the present proceedings, which - chronologically - encompass her fourth claim for judicial review, O challenges the lawfulness of the later period of her detention, namely from 22 July 2010, and in particular from say 4 March 2011, until 6 July 2011. The object of the present proceedings has never been to secure her release, which had already occurred at the time of their issue. The object has been to secure a declaration that the detention was unlawful and, perhaps in particular, an award of substantial damages for false imprisonment. ... O has the misfortune to have suffered for many years from serious mental ill-health. So the appeal requires this court to consider the Home Secretary's policy relating to the detention of the mentally ill pending deportation; and perhaps also to identify the criterion by which the court should determine a complaint that she has failed to implement some aspect of her policy relating to it. Furthermore the Home Secretary is obliged to conduct monthly reviews of whether a person's detention pending deportation should continue. There were, as the Court of Appeal held, defects in the Home Secretary's conduct of the monthly reviews of O's detention between March and July 2011. ... [W]ere O's claim for judicial review permitted to proceed, the result in all likelihood would be a declaration that her detention from 4 March 2011 to 6 July 2011 was unlawful and an award to her of damages in the sum of £1. ... I would dismiss the appeal." | 2016‑04‑28 13:48:52 | 2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Immigration detention R (VC) v SSHD [2016] EWHC 273 (Admin), [2016] MHLO 7 — Repatriation case with mental health background. "There are two strands to the contentions made by the Claimant in this claim, as argued before me: (1) a challenge to the lawfulness of his detention on the basis that it was in breach of (a) the Defendant's policy on detaining the mentally ill which, had it been applied lawfully, would have precluded the Claimant's detention; (b) Hardial Singh principle 3 because from 31 October 2014 there was no realistic prospect of the Claimant's removal within a reasonable timescale; and (c) Hardial Singh principle 2 because the Claimant was detained for an unreasonable length of time. (2) a challenge to the treatment of the Claimant in detention on the basis that it was: (a) in violation of Article 3 ECHR; (b) contrary to the Mental Capacity Act 2005; (c) discriminatory, contrary to the Equality Act 2010; and (d) procedurally unfair." | 2016‑02‑17 21:59:28 | 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Repatriation cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/02/16 cases
|
| R (Drammeh) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 2984 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 99 — "This is a claim for judicial review of (i) the Defendant's decision of 6 February 2015 (confirmed after further consideration on 16 June 2015) refusing to accept the Claimant's representations as a fresh asylum and human rights claim, and (ii) the lawfulness of the Claimant's detention under immigration powers from 21 November 2014 to 17 April 2015. The Claimant is a foreign criminal with an appalling immigration history, who is liable to deportation in consequence of having been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. He has been diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder, which appears to be well-controlled provided that he takes his anti-psychotic medication. Having exhausted his rights of appeal against the refusal of a very belated claim for asylum, he has done everything within his power to avoid being deported." | 2015‑11‑14 20:28:52 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Samadi) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1806 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 59 — "This is the hearing of the Claimant's claim for damages for what he argues was his unlawful immigration detention for 19 days from 14 May to 1 June 2012. In broad summary his case is that there were breaches of §55.10 of the Defendant's Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (the 'Guidance') which provides for two categories of potential detainees who will normally only be considered suitable for detention in very exceptional circumstances: (a) those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention, and (b) those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured. It is the Claimant's case that he fell into both those categories; and that in any event the Defendant (c) wrongfully continued to detain him after it had become clear that his removal was no longer imminent." | 2015‑08‑07 22:08:10 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| H v USA [2015] EWHC 1066 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 37 — Extradition case with mental health factual background. | 2015‑04‑29 21:35:39 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Sekerani v SSHD [2014] UKAITUR DA/00301/2014, [2014] MHLO 144 — "The appellant had claimed asylum on the bases that he fears the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe which claim was rejected in 2003. The appellant no longer relies on his asylum claim but on his claim for humanitarian protection. The appellant claims he cannot return to Zimbabwe because of his mental health problems as he has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He relies on a report from Dr Gillian Wainscott, a consultant psychiatrist dated 27 February 2014. The appellant claims that he has established a family and private life in the United Kingdom because he has a cousin in this country who has been helping him." | 2015‑03‑24 17:28:44 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (AMG) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 5 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 1 — Immigration case with mental health background. | 2015‑01‑13 16:35:32 | 2015 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| BCZ v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3585 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 114 — "This case concerns the position of a person in detention facing deportation who refuses food and fluid with a view to pressurising the SSHD into giving him leave to remain but who, in consequence, is at risk of suffering a serious neurological condition. Cases such as these highlight acute conflicting public interest considerations. On the one hand the State has in place an immigration policy which it seeks, and is entitled, to enforce vigourously and which includes detention pending removal as an important protective component. On the other hand detention is an acute deprivation of a person's civil liberties and, ordinarily, should be used only exceptionally where other courses short of detention are unavailable." | 2014‑12‑30 20:39:56 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Alemi) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 3858 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 111 — "I have reached the conclusion that no reasonable Secretary of State could have concluded that detention within a detention centre was in accordance with her published guidance once confronted with the contents of Dr Thomas's report. ... I cannot be precise about the time which would have elapsed, necessarily, before all necessary steps had been taken transfer to the Claimant but it seems reasonable to estimate that the process would have taken at least two weeks. In the result I conclude that the Claimant was unlawfully detained from midnight 23 May 2013 until his transfer to the psychiatric unit on 16 August 2013. ... At the commencement of the hearing before me I made it clear that I would adjudicate upon the issue of liability alone. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment precludes the Defendant from seeking to argue that the Claimant is entitled to nominal as opposed to substantial damages. All issues relating to damages will be considered, as appropriate, after a trial in the Queen's Bench Division." | 2014‑12‑30 13:07:31 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (SA (Holland)) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2570 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 79 — 'In these proceedings the claimant SA challenges his detention by the defendant under immigration powers. ... Permission was granted ... on what were then grounds 1 and 3 of the grounds of claim: that the defendant made public law errors in the application of her policy for detention of the mentally ill (ground 1) and that the claimant's detention was in breach of the Hardial Singh principles ... (ground 3). Ground 2 claimed that the policy on the detention of the mentally ill was itself unlawful. ... in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Das) v SSHD the claimant no longer pursues that ground.' | 2014‑08‑01 16:06:50 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (MD) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 2249 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 52 — "In my judgment, the Claimant's detention was unlawful from the 21st October 2011 until her release on the 13th September 2012 by reason of a breach of the third Hardial Singh principle and from the 16th February 2012 until her release on the 13th September 2012 due to the failure of the Defendant to properly understand and apply her policy regarding the detention of those with serious mental illness to the circumstances of the Claimant's case. So the Claimant's detention was unlawful both at common law and under Article 5 of the ECHR. I have also found that the Claimant's treatment by the Defendant by detaining her in the circumstances I have set out above amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR." | 2014‑07‑24 21:57:25 | 2014 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (O) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 990, [2014] MHLO 47 — "This issue on this appeal is whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("the Secretary of State") could continue lawfully to hold the appellant, O, in immigration detention from 24 July 2010 to 6 July 2011 notwithstanding a change in the diagnosis of her mental illness and medical opinion that she should be cared for in the community. ... Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal. The new diagnosis of Dr Agnew-Davies proposed a new treatment for curing her illness but her condition could still be satisfactorily managed in detention. She could still be held in an acceptable stable mental condition in detention under the existing treatment. In any event, there was a risk of reoffending and absconding. While these would have diminished with the passage of time, there still needed to be safeguards if O was released into the community and these were not put in place to the satisfaction of the court until 6 July 2011 when she was in fact released on bail." | 2014‑07‑17 21:52:44 | 2014 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2014] EWHC 153 (Admin), [2014] MHLO 3 — If the RSA government were to give a suitable undertaking, it would not be oppressive or unjust to return Dewani to the RSA for trial. The undertaking would need to be to the following effect: "In the event of the appellant being found unfit to be tried, he will be free to return to the UK, unless there is found to be a realistic prospect of his being tried within a year (or other stated reasonable period) of that finding and the trial takes place within the period. In any event the appellant must be free to return in the event a Court in South Africa, having found him unfit to be tried, embarked on the process of determining under the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 whether he did the act." | 2014‑02‑05 14:10:41 | 2014 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Arshad v Court of Magistrates Malta [2013] EWHC 3619 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 138 — Extradition case with mental health background. | 2013‑12‑30 22:49:55 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Muhammad) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 3157 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 123 — Immigration case mentioning the inherent jurisdiction in relation to 'vulnerable adults'. Interim relief (immediate and unconditional release from immigration detention) refused. | 2013‑12‑21 22:51:47 | 2013 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (IM (Nigeria)) v SSHD sub nom R (Muaza) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 1561, [2013] MHLO 113 — Unsuccessful appeal in hunger strike deportation case. | 2013‑12‑16 13:01:50 | 2013 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Muaza) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 3764 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 112 — "These two cases raise common issues over the lawfulness of the exercise by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of her powers of detention in respect of immigration detainees whose refusal to take food and fluids causes them life threatening physical conditions, and over whether there comes a stage at which such a detainee's continued detention after the refusal to take food or fluids involves a breach of rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights." | 2013‑12‑15 13:54:35 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (EH) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2569, [2012] MHLO 181 — Immigration/mental health case. | 2013‑09‑07 20:31:27 | 2012 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2013] EW Misc 8 (MC) — Immigration case. | 2013‑08‑08 01:53:38 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (T (Sri Lanka)) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 1093 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 62 — Immigration case. | 2013‑08‑08 01:36:09 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Bialek v Circuit Court in Warsaw Poland [2013] EWHC 930 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 39 — Extradition case with psychiatric element. | 2013‑05‑05 13:31:07 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Das) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 682 (Admin), [2013] MHLO 28 — "The Claimant's submission in these proceedings is that at the time of the second period of detention she suffered from a mental illness, in the form of depression and post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), and that in detaining her the Secretary of State acted contrary to, or without having proper regard to, his own policy regarding detention of persons suffering from mental illness. This means that her detention was unlawful, as being in breach of the Claimant's legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State would take into account and abide by his policy in this regard. ... The Claimant is entitled to a declaration that the entire second period of detention was unlawful. However, she is only entitled to nominal damages for false imprisonment in relation to that detention." | 2013‑03‑28 07:30:49 | 2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (D) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 2501 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 153 — Immigration case with mental health background. (1) D was entitled to damages for unlawful detention for breach of paragraph 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and s149 Equality Act 2010, or alternatively for breach of the Hardial Singh principles. (2) Nominal damages for the period during which, had regard been paid to the relevant matters, he would still have been detained. (3) Breaches of Article 3 and 8. | 2012‑12‑21 00:15:59 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (O) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 2899 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 149 — Another immigration case with mental health background. | 2012‑12‑20 23:26:25 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| JO (qualified person - hospital order - effect) Slovakia [2012] UKUT 237 (IAC), [2012] MHLO 132 — The respondent had been charged with attempted murder, found not guilty by reason of insanity, and made subject to a restricted hospital order. The Secretary of State made a deportation order under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Under those regulations, (a) a 'qualified person' (jobseeker or worker) is entitled to reside in the UK while he remains a qualified person, (b) after five years of such residence he is entitled to reside in the UK permanently, (c) a worker or self-employed person's periods of inactivity due to illness or accident are treated as if they were periods of activity. (1) The term 'illness' should not be given a narrow or restricted meaning, either in terms of the type of illness (to exclude mental illness) or the period of incapacity (to exclude long-term illnesses). (2) Although a prison sentence does not count towards the qualifying period for permanent residence, time spent subject to a hospital order does: 'The distinction is that a prison sentence follows the choice of an individual to act in a criminal manner, whereas a Hospital Order results from a finding that the individual suffers from a mental disorder and is not therefore criminally responsible for their otherwise culpable behaviour.' [This distinction is fallacious, as it is mental state at sentencing that is relevant and most hospital orders follow a criminal conviction.] (3) The Secretary of State's challenges in relation to the respondent's 'integration' and work history were rejected as (respectively) integration was not relevant because the respondent fell within the regulations, and the FTT were entitled to reach the view it did as to work history. | 2012‑12‑19 00:07:58 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Lamari) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 1630 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 126 — Immigration case with mental health background. | 2012‑12‑17 01:04:37 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| C v SSHD [2012] EWHC 1543 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 125 — Immigration case with mental health background: "In essence, the claimant's case is that the length of the detention, the unlikely prospect of removal, the deterioration in the mental health of the claimant together with independent evidence of torture, were all factors which would lead to a conclusion that the claimant's detention was unlawful, even taking account of an absconding risk which, when properly examined, was not of the highest." | 2012‑12‑17 00:58:07 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (LE (Jamaica)) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 597, [2012] MHLO 124 — Deportation case with mental health background. | 2012‑12‑17 00:54:10 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Lacki v Poland [2012] EWHC 1747 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 120 — Extradition and mental health. | 2012‑12‑17 00:23:01 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (C) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 801 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 118 — Mental health and immigration. | 2012‑12‑16 22:32:41 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Turner v Government of the USA [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 84 — The appellant was unable to demonstrate that the evidence that was before the High Court was 'decisive' such that if it had been before the District Judge he would have concluded that she had demonstrated that her mental condition was such that it would be oppressive to extradite her to the USA. | 2012‑08‑31 22:16:15 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (HA (Nigeria)) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 979 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 41 — (1) The claimant's immigration detention (firstly 1/5/10-5/7/10, then 5/11/10-15/12/10) had been unlawful; (2) the time it took to transfer him to hospital (i.e. 1/5/10-5/7/10) was manifestly unreasonable and unlawful; (3) the policy introduced on 26/8/10 in relation to detention of people with mental illness was unlawful in breach of the defendant's duties under s71 Race Relations Act 1976 and s49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. (4) The circumstances of the claimant's detention breached Article 3 during both periods. | 2012‑04‑28 18:33:48 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| MM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 279, [2012] MHLO 38 — Immigration case. "In my view, the Upper Tribunal was diverted, by reason of the arguments advanced, from an important aspect of the case, namely, whether it was disproportionate to deport the appellant on the grounds of his previous convictions in the light of the evidence of the prognosis and the relationship between his mental illness and his offending. The judge never seems to have reached any clear conclusion based on an assessment of the risk of re-offending despite continued medication and support from his family here. If the correct view is that there is no realistic risk of further offending and the prognosis is excellent then it is difficult to see how it could be proportionate to deport this appellant. He has been in this country for 12 years and he has nothing to go back to save his grandmother and great-aunt, if they are still alive." | 2012‑04‑28 17:54:37 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 37 — "The appellant appeals against the decision of the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Riddle, dismissing all the grounds on which those acting for him sought to oppose his extradition to South Africa to face the charge of murdering his wife and other related charges. Although we were provided with 80 authorities, the issues are specific to the appellant's mental state and the prison conditions in South Africa which would be applicable to him if extradited." | 2012‑04‑28 17:49:07 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Moussaoui) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 126 (Admin), [2012] MHLO 8 — Immigration case with a mental health element. | 2012‑02‑09 23:32:33 | 2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (AK) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 3188 (Admin) — Immigration case with mental health element. | 2011‑12‑10 11:46:17 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (BA) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2748 (Admin) — Judicial review of detention pending deportation (psychiatric background). | 2011‑11‑14 21:22:06 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Magritz v Public Prosecutors Office Bremen [2011] EWHC 1861 (Admin) — In relation to the claimant's extradition, where the sentence was for him to be 'placed in a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time': (1) section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the purpose of which is to protect a requested person whose physical or mental health is so poor that the act of extradition would be oppressive or unjust) was not engaged; and (2) there would be no breach of Article 3, Article 5 or Article 8. | 2011‑08‑22 22:04:18 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (FB) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2044 (Admin) — Unlawful detention case involving mentally-ill immigrant. | 2011‑08‑22 19:59:56 | 2011 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (S) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2120 (Admin) — Detention of mentally-ill immigrant was unlawful under common law and Article 5, and breached Articles 3 and 8. | 2011‑08‑16 21:31:30 | 2011 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (AA) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2265 (Admin) — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. | 2011‑08‑09 19:57:13 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (MK) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 115 — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. | 2011‑08‑09 19:45:38 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (OM (Nigeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 2147 (Admin) — Case involving immigrant with mental illness. | 2011‑08‑09 19:43:53 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Monday) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3079 (Admin) — There was no prospect (for psychiatric reasons) of deportation of the claimant within a reasonable period, so ongoing detention would be unlawful. | 2011‑04‑30 20:03:48 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Anam v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 1140 — This appeal concerns the Secretary of State for the Home Department's powers of detention under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 and the implications of his failure to have regard, when exercising those powers to detain the Appellant, to his own policy as set out in a document entitled "Enforcement Instructions and Guidance". | 2010‑10‑27 23:22:21 | 2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (OM (Algeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 65 (Admin) — OM was a failed asylum seeker facing deportation at the end of a criminal sentence. The Secretary of State's operational guidance stated that the mentally ill are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances: he was unable to justify the detention according to this policy, and therefore it was unlawful. Detention was also unlawful because the claimant had not been notified of his in-country right of appeal. | 2010‑07‑12 20:13:27 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (MJ (Angola)) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 557 — (1) The MHA regime and the Immigration Act 1971 run in parallel in relation to a person who is both an immigrant and mentally ill, so the SSHD was entitled to decide to deport MJ notwithstanding that he was still subject to s37/41. (2) There is no express statutory limitation on the SSJ's power to discharge under the MHA; it can be used in order to facilitate deportation; the protection for the patient is that the power must be exercised rationally and without breaching his Convention rights. (3) For a settled migrant who has lawfully spent all or most of his childhood in the host country, especially where he committed the relevant offences as a juvenile, very serious reasons are required to justify expulsion; the AIT had not appreciated that very serious reasons were needed so the appeal was granted. | 2010‑05‑22 08:57:19 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (MC (Algeria)) v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 347 — Unsuccessful challenge to lawfulness of detention under Schedule 3 Immigration Act 1971 which was mainly based on failure to have regard to policy that mentally ill should be detained only in very exceptional circumstances. | 2010‑04‑11 20:49:35 | 2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| MK (Mental Illness, Articles 3 and 8) Pakistan (2005) UKIAT 75 — Consideration of the approach to the availability of treatment and the assessment of Article 3 and 8 cases in an immigration context. | 2010‑04‑11 20:34:29 | 2005 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| KH (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1354 — Save in very exceptional cases, withdrawal of medical treatment as a result of ordering return of a failed asylum-seeker would not constitute a violation of Article 3. In order for a case to be "very exceptional" it would have to be exceptional inside the class of person with mental illness without family support: perhaps a very old or very young person would qualify but hardly an ordinary adult. The appellant's was not such a case. | 2010‑03‑26 23:32:57 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Anam v SSHD [2009] EWHC 2496 (Admin) — It is the Secretary of State's policy not to detain mentally ill persons pending deportation, save in "very exceptional circumstances". The claimant was entitled to a declaration that the SoS had unlawfully failed to consider the implications of his policy; however, the detention was not in breach of the policy, and continued detention was lawful. | 2009‑12‑04 21:27:40 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (McKinnon) v SSHA [2009] EWHC 2449 (Admin) — Asperger's Syndrome hacker extradition case: no permission to apply for JR on Article 8 grounds; no certificate on points of law of general public importance on the Article 3 grounds; no permission to appeal. | 2009‑10‑09 22:02:59 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Jansons v Latvia [2009] EWHC 1845 (Admin) — It would be oppressive under s25 Extradition Act 2003, and contrary to his Article 8 rights, for the Latvian criminal to be extradited, because there was a substantial risk that he would commit suicide. | 2009‑10‑08 19:31:44 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (McKinnon) v SSHA [2009] EWHC 2021 (Admin) — Because of the claimant's Asperger's Syndrome, extradition to the US would cause his mental health to suffer and would create risks including suicide; however, his case did not approach Article 3 severity: the SSHA's decision to order extradition, and the DPP's decision not to prosecute in the UK (although he had admitted certain offences), were lawful. | 2009‑08‑10 19:45:17 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Krishnapillai) v SSHD [2008] EWHC 2737 (Admin) — Mental health problems can engage Article 8 and render it disproportionate to separate a failed asylum seeker from the support of his family (in this case the mental health element involved PTSD, depression and the threat of suicide); however, deportation in this case was lawful. | 2009‑08‑09 22:39:13 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Chahboub) v SSHD [2009] EWHC 1989 (Admin) — Failed asylum seeker's challenge to detention in prison rather than immigration centre. (1) The first of the two periods of detention was outside the 3-month JR time limit so permission was refused in respect of that period. (2) The policy with respect to whether mentally ill people should be detained did not apply to the claimant, who had a personality disorder rather than mental illness. (3) The detention was justified under common law (intention to deport, detention for reasonable period, deportation possible in reasonable period, reasonable diligence to deport). (4) His transfer from the immigration centre to prison, because he had proved unmanageable, was in accordance with policy. (5) The manner of his detention in prison (required to share cell with convicted prisoner, dietary requirements ignored, 23-hour lock-up, limited access to telephone and visitors) was contrary to policy and breached his Article 5 rights. | 2009‑08‑09 21:44:33 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| MJ (Angola) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 741 — The SSJ should be served with the appeal proceedings as the court would be assisted by information from him as to the policy and objects as he sees them of s42 MHA (discharge power) in the context of a deportation case. | 2009‑07‑23 21:03:18 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| RA (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 1210 — Unsuccessful human rights appeal against deportation made by suspected terrorist: the article 3 claim being based on (1) a fear of being ill-treated in Sri Lanka on account of actual or suspected involvement with the Tamil Tigers; (2) mental health and in particular the risk of suicide if returned; the article 8 claim being based on the risk of suicide and interference with the private life established in the UK. | 2009‑06‑15 19:44:06 | 2008 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Y (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 362 — The appellants, who had been tortured as suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathisers before travelling from Sri Lanka to the UK, successfully resisted deportation on Article 3 grounds by claiming that they would commit suicide if returned (even though there was no objective foundation for any fear of ill-treatment). | 2009‑05‑04 15:15:28 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (X) v SSHD [2000] EWCA Civ 3026 — "This appeal from Turner J is concerned with the interrelation of the Immigration Act 1971, the Mental Health Act 1983, and the Human Rights Act 1998 and with the effect of an immigrant's mental illness on the Home Secretary's powers to refuse to grant him exceptional leave to enter or remain." | 2009‑04‑12 00:07:16 | 2000 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (X) v SSHD [2000] EWHC 647 (Admin) — "This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer dated 28 May 1999, by which he refused to grant the applicant exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and enforced his removal to Malta." | 2009‑04‑12 00:07:15 | 2000 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Razgar) v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 840 — The Secretary of State cannot lawfully certify that an immigration claim is manifestly unfounded unless the claim is bound to fail before an adjudicator; it it not enough that it is very likely to fail. All three claimants had already claimed asylum in safe European countries before claiming asylum again in the UK; the challenges to the Secretary of State's decisions were based on Article 3 and/or 8 and mental health consequences of removal. | 2009‑01‑14 21:56:48 | 2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (Razgar) v SSHD [2004] UKHL 27 — The claimant was an Iraqi asylum seeker who had already sought asylum in Germany, but claimed that his return to Germany would adversely affect his mental health. (1) In principle, Article 8 rights can be engaged by the foreseeable consequences for health of removal from the UK pursuant to an immigration decision, even where such removal does not violate Article 3, if the facts relied on by the applicant are sufficiently strong. (2) On the facts, the Home Secretary's decision to certify the claim as manifestly unfounded was unlawful, as an adjudicator could have properly ruled in the claimant's favour. | 2009‑01‑14 21:42:08 | 2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| Bensaid v UK 44599/98 [2001] ECHR 82 — The deportation to Algeria of a patient suffering from schizophrenia did not breach Articles 3, 8 or 13. | 2008‑11‑27 17:45:31 | 2001 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
| R (X) v SSHD [2000] EWCA Civ 311 — Home Office can repatriate using either Immigration Act 1971 or Mental Health Act 1983. | 2008‑09‑12 16:45:12 | 2000 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Repatriation cases, Transcript
|
Article titles
The following 81 pages are in this category.
A
B
C
J
K
L
M
R
- R (AA) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2265 (Admin)
- R (Adegun) v SSHD (2019) EWHC 22 (Admin)
- R (AK) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 3188 (Admin)
- R (Alemi) v SSHD (2014) EWHC 3858 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 111
- R (AMG) v SSHD (2015) EWHC 5 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 1
- R (ASK) v SSHD (2017) EWHC 196 (Admin)
- R (ASK) v SSHD (2019) EWCA Civ 1239
- R (BA) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2748 (Admin)
- R (C) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 801 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 118
- R (Chahboub) v SSHD (2009) EWHC 1989 (Admin)
- R (D) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2501 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 153
- R (Das) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 682 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 28
- R (Drammeh) v SSHD (2015) EWHC 2984 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 99
- R (EH) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2569, (2012) MHLO 181
- R (FB) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2044 (Admin)
- R (HA (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 979 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 41
- R (IM (Nigeria)) v SSHD sub nom R (Muaza) v SSHD (2013) EWCA Civ 1561, (2013) MHLO 113
- R (JS) v SSHD (2019) UKUT 64 (IAC)
- R (Krishnapillai) v SSHD (2008) EWHC 2737 (Admin)
- R (Lamari) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 1630 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 126
- R (LE (Jamaica)) v SSHD (2012) EWCA Civ 597, (2012) MHLO 124
- R (MC (Algeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 347
- R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2021 (Admin)
- R (McKinnon) v SSHA (2009) EWHC 2449 (Admin)
- R (MD) v SSHD (2014) EWHC 2249 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 52
- R (MJ (Angola)) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 557
- R (MK) v SSHD (2010) EWCA Civ 115
- R (Monday) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 3079 (Admin)
- R (Moussaoui) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 126 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 8
- R (Muaza) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 3764 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 112
- R (Muhammad) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 3157 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 123
- R (O) v SSHD (2012) EWHC 2899 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 149
- R (O) v SSHD (2014) EWCA Civ 990, (2014) MHLO 47
- R (O) v SSHD (2016) UKSC 19, (2016) MHLO 12
- R (OM (Algeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 65 (Admin)
- R (OM (Nigeria)) v SSHD (2010) EWHC 2147 (Admin)
- R (Razgar) v SSHD (2003) EWCA Civ 840
- R (Razgar) v SSHD (2004) UKHL 27
- R (S) v SSHD (2011) EWHC 2120 (Admin)
- R (SA (Holland)) v SSHD (2014) EWHC 2570 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 79
- R (Samadi) v SSHD (2015) EWHC 1806 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 59
- R (T (Sri Lanka)) v SSHD (2013) EWHC 1093 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 62
- R (VC) v SSHD (2016) EWHC 273 (Admin), (2016) MHLO 7
- R (VC) v SSHD (2018) EWCA Civ 57
- R (X) v SSHD (2000) EWCA Civ 3026
- R (X) v SSHD (2000) EWCA Civ 311
- R (X) v SSHD (2000) EWHC 647 (Admin)
- RA (Sri Lanka) v SSHD (2008) EWCA Civ 1210
- Republic of South Africa v Dewani (2012) EWHC 842 (Admin), (2012) MHLO 37
- Republic of South Africa v Dewani (2013) EW Misc 8 (MC)
- Republic of South Africa v Dewani (2014) EWHC 153 (Admin), (2014) MHLO 3
S
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: