- BY Colin Yeo
Court of Appeal decides on medical treatment, Article 3 and Article 8
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
Black caps donned, appeals dismissed. Write up to follow when I can bring myself to read it properly.
SHARE
Relevant articles chosen for you
Colin Yeo
Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.
One Response
The judgement repeatedly refers/alludes to the fact that no claim was made under Article 2. This seems bizarre. Surely no claim under Article 2 could possibly have succeeded:
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
The applicants are not being deprived of their lives *intentionally*- it is an accidental if inevitable consequence of the SSHD’s decision- and the Court makes that quite clear with regard to the similar Article 3 point.
The argument which the Court appears to be making is that death is not a breach of Article 8!