Guveya, R (on the application of) v National Asylum Support Service [2004] EWHC 2371 (Admin) (30 July 2004)

Guveya, R (on the application of) v National Asylum Support Service [2004] EWHC 2371 (Admin) (30 July 2004)

The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that it was reasonable for the claimant to return voluntarily to Zimbabwe and therefore to refuse Hard Cases Support. The non-enforcement policy was not based on safety concerns, and there was no breach of Article 3 ECHR as the claimant's destitution resulted from his own choice not to leave the UK.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2371 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Guveya; Defendant: National Asylum Support Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum Support, Destitution, Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, Article 3 ECHR, Government Policy Discretion
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Asylum Support Destitution Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 Article 3 ECHR Government Policy Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guveya

Claimant

National Asylum Support Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State misapplied the Hard Cases Support policy under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether refusal of support breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's refusal to return to Zimbabwe was reasonable given the non-enforcement policy

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that it was reasonable for the claimant to return voluntarily to Zimbabwe and therefore to refuse Hard Cases Support. The non-enforcement policy was not based on safety concerns, and there was no breach of Article 3 ECHR as the claimant's destitution resulted from his own choice not to leave the UK.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused