2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants sought to reverse a decision to remove them to France, arguing that French laws would violate their ECHR rights and the BCIA. The court upheld the original decision, finding no breach of ECHR rights or section 55 of the BCIA in terms of the child's best interests.
Judgment
Master of the Rolls:
The appellants are Iranian nationals (father and daughter) who by these proceedings challenge the Secretary of State’s decision on 5 December 2011 to refuse their asylum claims on safe third country grounds and to remove them to France. France has accepted responsibility for their asylum claims pursuant to the Council Regulation 343/2003/CE (“the Dublin II Regulation”). Before Hickinbottom J, they challenged their return to France on the basis of French Law 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010 (“the 2010 law”) which effectively bans the wearing of the burka and the niqab in public. They alleged that this would breach their rights under articles 3, 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Their claims were dismissed by the judge in their entirety. Maurice Kay LJ gave them permission to appeal in relation only to articles 8, 9 and 14 by reference only to the French Law 2004-228 (“the 2004 law”) and in relation to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“BCIA”). The 2004 law had not featured in argument before the judge. It is, however, common ground that the appeal is concerned with the 2004 law and not the 2010 law. The 2004 Law provides that “in public elementary schools, middle schools and secondary schools, the wearing of symbols or clothing by which the students conspicuously indicate their religious belief is prohibited”.
The facts
The first appellant (“B”) was born in Iran. The second appellant (“M”) is his daughter. She was born on 22 August 2002. B divorced his wife in 2007 and he and M have lived together since then. He says that he was forced to leave Iran in February 2011 because of his political views and activity in Iran. He and his daughter are both practising Muslims who according to their religious faith believe that females should cover their heads in public. They went first to France and then came to the UK. On 5 December 2011, France formally accepted responsibility for dealing with their asylum claim. On the same day, the Secretary of State refused the claim on safe third country grounds on the basis that they could safely be removed to France where their application for refugee status would be determined.
On 31 January, a family return conference was convened. This was attended by B, but not M. B presented a questionnaire which he had completed. In answer to a question designed to ensure that he understood that, if he did not leave the UK voluntari