All Articles: medical treatment

The Court of Appeal has reiterated the process that should be followed in article 3 medical treatment cases in relation to the shifting burden of proof, as set out in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD [2020] UKSC 17 and in the headnote to the Upper Tribunal’s consideration of the case. This case...

2nd November 2023
BY Sonia Lenegan

Practitioners will no doubt be aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17. The justices endorsed the European Court of Human Rights decision in Paposhvili v Belgium (application no. 41738/10) and thereby materially lowered the threshold for resisting...

19th May 2022
BY Miranda Butler

In HA (expert evidence, mental health) Sri Lanka [2022] UKUT 111 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal considers whether the removal of a Sri Lankan man with mental health difficulties would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 prohibits inhumane and degrading treatment. Where a person’s mental...

4th May 2022
BY Iain Halliday

Seriously ill migrants claiming humanitarian protection status must show that a persecutor would intentionally deprive them of medical treatment, the Upper Tribunal has confirmed. The case is NM (Art 15(b): intention requirement) Iraq [2021] UKUT 259 (IAC). NM suffers from end-stage chronic kidney disease and needs dialysis to stay alive....

25th October 2021
BY CJ McKinney

The ripple effects of Paposhvili v Belgium [2016] ECHR 1113 continue to be felt at the boundary of Article 3 ECHR. In the first reported decision of its kind, the Upper Tribunal has found that the “modified” (for which, read “lowered”) test for Article 3 breach in medical treatment cases...

16th August 2021
BY Taimour Lay

Lawyers interested in deportation will be aware of the decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, handed down in April 2020. In that case, the Supreme Court set out the correct test that should be applied to cases where the courts are...

29th December 2020
BY Asif Hanif

In the case of AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17 the Supreme Court has widened the protection available to seriously ill migrants facing deportation from the UK and subsequent death for want of medical treatment. The judgment opens by noting that the case involves...

1st May 2020
BY Colin Yeo

Anyone whose life consists of daily references to the Immigration Rules will tell you that the experience can feel a lot like deep ocean exploration in the Mariana Trench: despite constant research, you will still make new discoveries, even when you think there are no further depths to which you...

27th April 2020
BY Alex Piletska

AXB (Art 3 health: obligations; suicide) Jamaica [2019] UKUT 397 (IAC) is the latest in a series of cases which have tried to transpose the decision of Paposhvili v Belgium (application no. 41738/10) into domestic law. Paposhvili was an unusual case in which the applicant had died before the European Court...

16th January 2020
BY Alex Schymyck

In Savran v Denmark (application no. 57467/15) the European Court of Human Rights has reinforced the importance, in Article 3 medical treatment cases, of the obligation on governments to obtain assurances where there is any doubt as to the impact of removing a seriously ill migrant to another country.  The...

15th October 2019
BY Chai Patel

The deportation case of a Nigerian man with sickle cell disease, resident in the UK for almost three decades, has been bouncing around the UK court system for over six years. It appears the case has finally been settled by the Court of Appeal – on its second visit –...

9th July 2019
BY Nick Nason

In MM (Malawi) [2018] EWCA Civ 2482 the Court of Appeal has again confirmed that there is indeed a discrepancy between the domestic law on Article 3 medical cases as set out in the House of Lords case of N v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 31...

30th November 2018
BY Chai Patel

The Court of Appeal last week issued “authoritative guidance” on Article 3 medical challenges against removal, reflecting the European Court of Human Rights’s decision in Paposhvili v Belgium. Lord Justice Sales, giving the court’s judgment in AM (Zimbabwe) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 64,...

5th February 2018
BY Chai Patel

In HK, HH, SK and FK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 1871 the Court of Appeal found that asylum seekers could be returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation. Removal would not violate the appellants’ Article 3 rights, despite medical reports on their poor...

1st December 2017
BY Clare Duffy

When is it a breach of Article 3 to remove someone with a severe, possibly terminal, medical condition to a country where they will not receive the care they need? When they’re days away from death? When it will halve their lifespan? What level of pain is required? What constitutes...

20th November 2017
BY Chai Patel

On 13 December 2016, the Grand Chamber handed down its much-awaited decision in Paposhvili v Belgium (Applcn No. 41738/10). The decision: (1) clarifies, widens and provides guidance on the circumstances in which an alien suffering from a serious illness can resist removal under art 3 ECHR; and (2) gives rise...

27th December 2016
BY Duran Seddon

Hareef, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 873 (Admin) is a case that was heard in the wake of GS (India), & Ors v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 40, which concluded that in asylum claims, Article 3 can have no real...

29th April 2016
BY Chris McWatters

Unfortunately the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Article 3 health test cases in GS (India) & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40 (30 January 2015) does not change very much for migrants with serious health conditions seeking to remain in the UK.

...
4th February 2015
BY Abigail Smith

Human rights medical treatment expulsion cases are perhaps some of the most stark, most difficult and most challenging cases faced by a human rights lawyer. They concern life itself and will often involve a miserable, painful death if unsuccessful. The claimant and his or her family will be understandably desperate to...

27th November 2013
BY Colin Yeo

The case of Rose Akhalu (health claim: ECHR Article 8) [2013] UKUT 400 (IAC) offers a glimmer of hope to some migrants dependent on health care in the UK facing removal. These cases can involve people being sent to their country of origin to die an avoidably early and unpleasant...

11th September 2013
BY Colin Yeo

Some time ago, I put up an angry post (it is never a good idea to publish in anger) about the case of  GS (Article 3 – health exceptionality) India [2011] UKUT 35 (IAC), in which it was held that a diabetic man on dialysis who would be painfully and unpleasantly dead...

17th May 2012
BY Free Movement
Login
Or become a member of Free Movement today