N. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department), (2005) 337 N.R. 347 (HL)

• Case Date: May 05, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2005), 337 N.R. 347 (HL)

N. v. U.K. (2005), 337 N.R. 347 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. JN.024

N (FC) (appellant) v. Secre­tary of State for the Home Department (respondent)

([2005] UKHL 31)

Indexed As: N. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department)

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

May 5, 2005.

Summary:

A 24 year female refugee, who was raped and ill-treated by terrorists in Uganda, fled to the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. She was ill and was hospitalized within a few hours of arrival. She was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Over time, with drugs and medi­cal treatment, her condition improved. Her claim for asylum was rejected because the ill-treatment she was subjected to in Uganda was not sanctioned by the state. The Secre­tary of State sought to deport her. She ap­pealed, arguing that her deportation would violate her right under art. 3 of the European Conven­tion on Human Rights to be protected against inhuman treatment (i.e., since she could not get the drugs and medical treat­ment she needed in Uganda, her condition would deteriorate rapidly and she would die). An adjudicator dismissed her appeal from the asylum decision, but allowed the appeal on the ground that to return her to Uganda would be a breach of art. 3. The Secre­tary of State appealed. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that she could be deported. The woman ap­pealed.

The Court of Appeal held that while the tri­bunal's conclusion was flawed for want of legally sufficient reasons, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the refugee's evidence did not bring her case within that "extreme" class of case to which it must be­long if a claim based on art. 3 was to suc­ceed. The refugee appealed again.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. The court held that while this was a "very sad" case and "her position will be similar to having a life-support machine switched off", the case was not exceptional. Article 3 did not, absent exceptional circumstances, give aliens who were subject to expulsion any en­titlement to remain in the territory of the contracting state in order to continue to bene­fit from medical treatment they received while their applications were being con­sid­ered.

Civil Rights - Topic 3831

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes - Deportation - A 24 year old female refugee from Uganda claimed asylum in the United Kingdom - She was ill and was hospitalized within a few hours of arrival and diagnosed with HIV/AIDS - Over time, with drugs and med­i­cal treatment, her condition stabilized - Her claim for asylum was rejected - The Secretary of State sought to deport her -The refugee alleged that her deportation would violate her right under art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to be protected against inhuman treatment (i.e., since she could not get the drugs and medical treatment she needed in Uganda, her condition would deteriorate rapidly and she would die) - The House of Lords held that the refugee could be deported - Article 3 did not, absent exceptional circum­stances, give aliens who were subject to expulsion any entitlement to remain in the territory of the contracting state in order to continue to benefit from medical treat­ment they received while their applications were being considered - The fact that medical treatment was not available in the country where the refugee was being sent did not constitute exceptional circumstances - In order to constitute exceptional circum­stan­ces, it had to be shown that the appli­cant's medical condition had reached such a crit­ical state, that there were compelling hu­manitarian grounds for not removing him or her to a place which lacked the medical and social services which he or she would need to prevent acute suffering.

Cases Noticed:

Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996), 23 E.H.R.R. 413, refd to. [paras. 8, 28, 53, 80].

D. v. United Kingdom (1997), 24 E.H.R.R. 423, refd to. [paras. 11, 23, 60, 78].

Bensaid v. United Kingdom (2001), 33 E.H.R.R. 205, refd to. [paras. 13, 44, 70, 82].

Brown v. Stott, [2000] N.R. Uned. 256; [2003] 1 A.C. 618 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R (Ullah) v. Special Adjudicator, [2004] 2 A.C. 323, refd to. [para. 24].

Ahmed v. Austria (1996), 23 E.H.R.R. 278, refd to. [para. 28].

Soering v. United King­dom (1989), 11 E.H.R.R. 439, refd to. [paras. 28, 80].

B., Re, [2005] UKHL 19; 332 N.R. 295; (H.L.), refd to. [para. 58].

Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002), 35 E.H.R.R. 205, refd to. [paras. 68, 77].

Limbuela v. Secretary of State, [2004] Q.B. 1440, refd to. [para. 87].

Gezer v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] E.W.C.A. Civ. 1730, refd to. [para. 87].

K. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2001] Imm. A.R. 11, refd to. [para. 95].

Statutes Noticed:

European Convention on Human Rights, art. 3 [para. 7].

Counsel:

[not disclosed]

Agents:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard before Lord Ni­cholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craig­head, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was given on May 5, 2005, when the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead - see para­graphs 1 to 19;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 20 to 54;

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe - see para­graph 55;

Baroness Hale of Richmond - see para­graphs 56 to 71;

Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood - see paragraphs 72 to 99.