View source for BA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013

{{Case
|Date=2017/05/12
|NCN=[2017] UKAITUR IA343212013
|Other citations=[2017] MHLO 26
|Court=Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
|Judges=Frances
|Parties=BA, Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Sentence=Article 3 immigration case
|Summary="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."
|Subject=Repatriation cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2019/5/1 11:09:59 PM
}}


==External link==
{{#bailii:(2017) UKAITUR IA343212013}}

[[Category:Repatriation cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2017 cases]]