Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Legal test when arguing suicide risk to challenge removal
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
New from the Upper Tribunal: MY (Suicide risk after Paposhvili) Occupied Palestinian Authority  UKUT 232 (IAC). The case is about migrants who seek to rely on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to resist removal from the UK on the basis that they are very seriously ill and their condition would deteriorate in the country of return.
This often arises in the context of physical illness, but it extends to mental illness as well. In this case, the appellant was “at high risk of suicide”.
The judgment explains the legal test in such (thankfully rare) cases. The official headnote reads:
Where an individual asserts that he would be at real risk of (i) a significant, meaning substantial, reduction in his life expectancy arising from a completed act of suicide and/or (ii) a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his state of mental health resulting in intense suffering falling short of suicide, following return to the Receiving State and meets the threshold for establishing Article 3 harm identified at  –  of the Supreme Court’s judgment in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 17;  Imm AR 1167, when undertaking an assessment the six principles identified at  –  of J v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 629;  Imm AR 409 (as reformulated in Y (Sri Lanka) v SSHD  EWCA Civ 362) apply.
We don’t think this adds a huge amount to the existing law in this area, but certainly worth a read if handling such a case now or in future.