Secretary of State for the Home Department Immigration Appeal Tribunal v Krepel [2002] EWCA Civ 1265 (26 July 2002)

Secretary of State for the Home Department Immigration Appeal Tribunal v Krepel [2002] EWCA Civ 1265 (26 July 2002)

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal correctly applied the legal test for sufficiency of state protection under both Article 3 ECHR and the Refugee Convention. There was no evidence that the Czech authorities were unwilling or unable to protect the appellant from harm. The appellant failed to show a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned. The test is not removal of all risk but sufficiency of protection; no guarantee of safety is required.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1265
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department Immigration Appeal Tribunal; Defendant/appellant: Karel Krepel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Immigration/human Rights Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil Division) From the Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Asylum, Article 3 ECHR, State Protection, Refugee Convention, Sufficiency of Protection, Discrimination
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Article 3 ECHR State Protection Refugee Convention Sufficiency of Protection Discrimination

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for the Home Department Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Claimant/respondent

Karel Krepel

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Immigration/human Rights Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil Division) From the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Czech Republic provides sufficient protection to the appellant against ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the test for state protection under Article 3 ECHR differs from that under the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal applied the correct legal standard

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal correctly applied the legal test for sufficiency of state protection under both Article 3 ECHR and the Refugee Convention. There was no evidence that the Czech authorities were unwilling or unable to protect the appellant from harm. The appellant failed to show a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned. The test is not removal of all risk but sufficiency of protection; no guarantee of safety is required.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application refused.
  • Public funding detailed assessment.