SN v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1683 (29 November 2005)

SN v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1683 (29 November 2005)

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal correctly applied the demanding test for Article 8 in foreign healthcare cases, as articulated by Baroness Hale in Razgar, and was entitled to conclude that the appellant's removal would not be disproportionate given the legitimate aim of immigration control. There is no material difference between the approaches of Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale, and the Tribunal did not err in law.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1683
Parties
Claimant/applicant: SN; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 8 ECHR, Deportation and Medical Treatment, Proportionality, Distinction Between Domestic and Foreign Article 8 Cases
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Article 8 ECHR Deportation and Medical Treatment Proportionality Distinction Between Domestic and Foreign Article 8 Cases

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SN

Claimant/applicant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of an HIV-positive appellant to Uganda, where required therapy is unavailable, breaches Article 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal applied the correct legal test under Article 8

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal correctly applied the demanding test for Article 8 in foreign healthcare cases, as articulated by Baroness Hale in Razgar, and was entitled to conclude that the appellant's removal would not be disproportionate given the legitimate aim of immigration control. There is no material difference between the approaches of Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale, and the Tribunal did not err in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed