Mouhoub v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 738 (08 May 2003)

Mouhoub v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 738 (08 May 2003)

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal did not err in law in its assessment of the risk to the appellant under Article 3 ECHR; the tribunal applied the correct legal test or, even if there was a technical misstatement, the outcome would have been the same given the evidence. There was insufficient evidence to establish a real risk of torture or inhuman treatment if the appellant were returned to Algeria as a deserter.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 738
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Khelifa Mohamed Ait Mouhoub; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Article 3 ECHR, Standard of Proof in Future Harm, Military Desertion, Risk of Torture
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Article 3 ECHR Standard of Proof in Future Harm Military Desertion Risk of Torture

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khelifa Mohamed Ait Mouhoub

Claimant/appellant

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 the appellant faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if returned to Algeria as a deserter
  2. 2 Whether the Immigration Appeal Tribunal applied the correct legal test for risk assessment under Article 3 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Immigration Appeal Tribunal did not err in law in its assessment of the risk to the appellant under Article 3 ECHR; the tribunal applied the correct legal test or, even if there was a technical misstatement, the outcome would have been the same given the evidence. There was insufficient evidence to establish a real risk of torture or inhuman treatment if the appellant were returned to Algeria as a deserter.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed