On 27 September, the UK High Court, in AAM v Secretary of State for the Home Department, declared the detention of a 15 year old asylum seeker to be unlawful. The Court found that the detention breached Article 5 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UK Human Rights Act 1998. The claimant, an Iranian national, was 15 years old on arrival to the UK. The case centres on the fact that immigration officers concluded he was 18 years old on arrival. Judge Lang held that the claimant’s detention was unlawful on grounds that; firstly, the authorities failed to sufficiently safeguard the claimant’s welfare; and secondly, they failed to determine the true age of the claimant.
Meanwhile, on 9 October the UK High Court, in R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department found the detention of a mentally ill failed asylum seeker to be unlawful and therefore in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following the rejection of his asylum claim the applicant was detained in October 2010 for the purpose of removal. At the time of the detention he suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Judge Lang found that the British authorities were aware from early on that the claimant was reported to be suffering from a mental illness. The Court considered the lawfulness of the claimant’s detention for a specific period during 2010 and found the defendant had acted unlawfully in failing to consider the applicants mental health when making the decision to detain him.
Click here to read more on this case from the UK Human Rights Blog.
In other UK immigration news, the UK High Court last week confirmed in EM (Eritrea) and others v Secretary of State for the Home department, that EU Member States are entitled to return refugees to the state in which they first were granted asylum unless it was proven that there was “systematic deficiencies” in the asylum procedures of that State. This decision indicated a presumption of Member State compliance with human rights and international obligations. To rebut this presumption there would need to be proof of “systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure”. Proof of individual risk would not suffice. The Court examined the case under the Dublin II Regulation. Bulletin readers will remember our examination of Dublin procedures in last week’s asylum omnibus.
Click here to read more on this case in the UK Human Rights Blog.
Also, on Tuesday last week the UK Court of Appeal considered two cases on deportation. The Court in Mohan v Secretary of State for the Home Department considered the interaction of family and immigration law taking into consideration Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court endorsed the approach of the Upper Tribunal in Nimako-Boateng which advocated adjourning immigration proceedings where family proceedings concerning the best interests of the child are ongoing.