Updates, commentary and advice on immigration and asylum law
New course on Immigration Act 2016 available now

Article 3 medical treatment cases not to be reconsidered by Supreme Court

The case of N v SSHD will stand: the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal (see p9) from the Court of Appeal in the linked medical treatment cases on Article 3 ECHR with the words:

With regret, the Panel can foresee no reasonable prospect of this Court departing from N v SSHD.

In the Court of Appeal the cases were GS (India), EO (Ghana), GM (India), PL (Jamaica), BA (Ghana) & KK (DRC) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40. The four whose appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and who suffer from end stage kidney disease now face an early and unpleasant death within weeks following their removal from the United Kingdom. The others face very uncertain prospects as they try to obtain some form of treatment.

We do not know their names, but our thoughts should be with them, their friends and families and their lawyers.

“The sentence of this court is that you will be taken from here to the place from whence you came…”

Colin Yeo
Colin Yeo A barrister specialising in UK immigration law at Garden Court Chambers in London, I have been practising in immigration law for 15 years. I am passionate about immigration law and founded and edit the Free Movement immigration law blog.

Not yet a member of Free Movement?

Sign up for as little as £20 per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all articles
  • Access to our forums
  • E-books for free
  • Access to all online training materials
  • Downloadable training certificates
Shares