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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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): […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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, […]
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 […]
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? […]
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 […]
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), […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
