P.T.B. AND OTHERS v United Kingdom - 5470/09 [2011] ECHR 942 (31 May 2011)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> P. T. B. AND OTHERS v United Kingdom - 5470/09 [2011] ECHR 942 (31 May 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/942.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 942 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 5470/09 by P. T. B. AND OTHERS against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on May 2011 as a Chamber composed of: Lech Garlicki, President, Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, Sverre Erik Jebens, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The first applicant, Ms PTB, is a Jamaican national who was born in 1966. The second applicant, S, and the third applicant, T, who are also Jamaican nationals, are the first applicant’s great-nieces (her sister’s granddaughters through two daughters). S and T are therefore cousins because their mothers are sisters. They were born in 1993 and 1999 respectively and live in London. They were all represented before the Court by Ms G. Kashano, a lawyer practising in London with Fisher Meredith Solicitors. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Neenan of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1. The background to the first applicant’s immigration history The first applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 11 March 2000 and was granted leave to remain as a visitor for six months. She was subsequently granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a student, which was validly extended until 30 October 2002. On 8 November 2002, she made an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a British citizen which was refused by the Secretary of State on 12 July 2003. She has subsequently separated from her British husband. 2. The second applicant’s family background and arrival in the United Kingdom In June 2001, when she was 7 years of age, S arrived in the United Kingdom on a visitor’s visa to visit her grandmother, the first applicant’s sister. Her leave to remain in the United Kingdom has never subsequently been extended. Upon S’s arrival in the United Kingdom, she moved in with her cousin, T and her aunt, T’s mother. S’s mother is a drug addict living in Jamaica with no permanent address with whom she has had no contact since her arrival in the United Kingdom. Similarly, S has not had any contact with her father who is thought to be living in the United States of America. On 6 April 2010, S gave birth to a son. The nationality and immigration status of her son and his father are unknown. 3. The third applicant’s family background and arrival in the United Kingdom On 23 August 1999, at the age of six months, T arrived in the United Kingdom on her mother’s passport. She was granted six months’ leave to enter the United Kingdom. Her leave to remain in the United Kingdom has never been extended. In November 2001, T’s mother was arrested and detained on charges relating to the supply of Class A drugs, of which she was later convicted. In June 2003, T’s mother was deported to Jamaica and abandoned T in the United Kingdom. T’s father was killed in a gang war in Jamaica in 2009. 4. The immigration proceedings relating to all three applicants The first applicant has lived with T ever since the first applicant’s arrival in the United Kingdom in March 2000. She has lived with S ever since S’s arrival in the United Kingdom in June 2001. Since the arrest and detention of T’s mother in November 2001, the first applicant has had sole responsibility for the care of both S and T. On 6 February 2008, the Secretary of State refused an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom submitted by the applicants, inter alia, under Article 8 of the Convention. On 29 April 2008, the then Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“the AIT”) dismissed their appeal. In decisions dated 13 May 2008 and 29 July 2008 respectively, a Senior Immigration Judge and the High Court refused their applications for reconsideration of the AIT decision. B. Subsequent developments On 22 December 2010, the Vice-President of the Fourth Section decided that notice of the application should be given to the Government and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. In a letter dated 30 March 2011, the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that, on 23 March 2011, all three applicants had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. In a letter dated 18 April 2011, the applicants’ representatives confirmed that the applicants agreed to their applications being struck out of the Court’s list of cases. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention that their removal to Jamaica would be a disproportionate interference with their family and private lives in the United Kingdom. They also complained under Article 14 when taken with Article 8 of the Convention that a policy in force at the time unlawfully discriminated against children who were cared for by people other than their parents. THE LAW The Court observes that the applicants have confirmed that they have no intention of pursuing their application before the Court, subsequent to their grant of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Court further notes that there is no longer any risk of the applicants being removed to Jamaica and that the matter has therefore been resolved. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the requirements of Article 37 (1) (a) and (b) have been met. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/942.html