Ullah v Special Adjudicator [2002] EWCA Civ 1856 (16 December 2002)

Ullah v Special Adjudicator [2002] EWCA Civ 1856 (16 December 2002)

Removal decisions to countries that do not respect Article 9 rights will not infringe the Human Rights Act 1998 unless the anticipated interference with religious practice amounts to treatment prohibited by Article 3 ECHR. The Court of Appeal declined to extend the principle of extra-territorial effect beyond Article 3, holding that only flagrant breaches of other Convention rights may engage the UK's obligations, and that any further extension is a matter for Parliament or the executive, not the courts.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1856
Parties
Appellant: Ahsan Ullah; Respondent: Special Adjudicator; Appellant: Thi Lien Do; Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Expulsion, Article 9 ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998, Religious Freedom, Refugee Convention
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Asylum Expulsion Article 9 ECHR Human Rights Act 1998 Religious Freedom +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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahsan Ullah

Appellant

Special Adjudicator

Respondent

Thi Lien Do

Appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 9 ECHR require the UK to grant refuge to immigrants prevented from freely practising or teaching their religion in their home countries?
  2. 2 To what extent does the HRA inhibit the UK from expelling asylum seekers who do not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution?
  3. 3 Can removal decisions engage Article 9 ECHR where the anticipated interference falls short of Article 3 ill-treatment?

Ratio Decidendi

Removal decisions to countries that do not respect Article 9 rights will not infringe the Human Rights Act 1998 unless the anticipated interference with religious practice amounts to treatment prohibited by Article 3 ECHR. The Court of Appeal declined to extend the principle of extra-territorial effect beyond Article 3, holding that only flagrant breaches of other Convention rights may engage the UK's obligations, and that any further extension is a matter for Parliament or the executive, not the courts.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No grant of asylum under Refugee Convention or Human Rights Act 1998
  • Removal decisions upheld