Sn v Sshd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Patten |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 870 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 24 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | C4/2014/2142 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 870
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE LANG)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Patten
C4/2014/2142
Ms Victoria Laughton (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
(As Approved)
The issue for me this morning is whether or not I should make an order giving permission to the Applicant in this case to proceed to a full hearing in the Administrative Court on her application for judicial review of the decision or decisions of the Secretary of State that her Article 3 human rights claim should not be treated as a fresh claim.
The proceedings are complicated, at least in historical terms, by the fact that there is a separate issue not unrelated to the substantive Article 3 claim, but specific to the question of whether or not the Applicant is fit to fly.
I do not intend to go into the full details of her mental health, but it is accepted by the Secretary of State that she is a suicide risk. That, however, (that is to say the question of whether she is fit to fly) has been catered for by the Secretary of State making it clear in her decision letter that there would be no removal back to Botswana of the Applicant unless and until a medical report had indicated that she was fit to fly.
That is a self-contained issue, as I have said, but in this case it led to the Applicant dropping at the renewal stage her reliance on her Article 3 grounds in relation to the fitness to fly issue. I am not, therefore, concerned with that as part of the application this morning.
Her position is that she has an Article 3 human rights claim largely based on the fact that if returned to Botswana she would not receive adequate assistance and health care in relation to the psychiatric condition which gives rise to the risk of suicide. This is not because in Botswana sufficiently suitable facilities do not exist but rather because her condition, it is said, is such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Sarrar Subahi Ibrahim) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...following day, 19 September 2014. 97 I am encouraged in this assessment of what should have happened by what did happen in the case of R (SN) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 1974 (Admin). I need not go into the facts of that case, but it became apparent on 7 October 2010 that it was no longer reasonable......
-
Mohsen Khaleseh v The Home Office
...from the skeleton arguments prepared for each side I have a trial bundle and a bundle of authorities. The Defendant added the case of the SN v SSHD [2014] EWHC 1974 (Admin). I heard oral evidence from the Claimant and from the Defendant's witness Mr Richard Pulham. Pursuant to an applicatio......