This is stomach turning stuff, I’m afraid, and has left me quivering with anger. A new case on Article 3 has just been reported: GS (Article 3 – health exceptionality) India  UKUT 35 (IAC)
The facts of the case and the medical evidence were undisputed. That evidence was as follows:
“He (the respondent) is dependant on this treatment to remain alive and well, and would expect he would die after a period of one to two weeks if the treatment was discontinued. (The respondent) is a good candidate to receive renal transplant, and we have been discussing with him whether any of his family could offer a live kidney donor for him. However, there are no firm plans to proceed with this at present.”
The Immigration Judge allowed the appeal on human rights grounds because there was no way the Appellant or his family could afford the medical treatment. Bravo for a courageous and humane decision.
Someone at UKBA saw fit to appeal, however. One really does have to wonder at what went through their mind, as the determination was unreported and set no precedent.
The Home Office appeal has now succeeded. Apparently it is not ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ to send a man back to an avoidable but painful death over a one to two week period as his single kidney fails him.
It is a cliche, but I honestly do wonder how the person who made that decision to appeal will sleep at night knowing that he or she is personally responsible for an entirely avoidable early and painful death.