WA (Palestinian Territories), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

WA (Palestinian Territories), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The appeal was dismissed because the tribunal could not determine WA's true date of birth on the balance of probabilities; the Secretary of State did not owe a positive operational duty under Article 2 ECHR to amend the BRP, as the duty lay with the NHS; and Article 8 ECHR did not require the Secretary of State to insert a date of birth known to be inaccurate or unsupported by evidence, regardless of the severe impact on WA.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: WA; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Intervener: Mind
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life), Judicial Review, Age Assessment, Biometric Residence Permit, State's Positive Obligations
Human Rights Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life) Judicial Review Age Assessment Biometric Residence Permit +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WA

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Mind

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal should have determined WA's true date of birth as a fact
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State owed a positive operational duty under Article 2 ECHR to amend the BRP to protect WA's life
  3. 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR imposed a positive obligation on the Secretary of State to amend the BRP to reflect the claimed date of birth

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the tribunal could not determine WA's true date of birth on the balance of probabilities; the Secretary of State did not owe a positive operational duty under Article 2 ECHR to amend the BRP, as the duty lay with the NHS; and Article 8 ECHR did not require the Secretary of State to insert a date of birth known to be inaccurate or unsupported by evidence, regardless of the severe impact on WA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed