Secretary of State for the Home Department v Y
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
- LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Immigration Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an Afghan respondent who sought asylum in the UK and was initially granted limited leave to remain due to his traumatic background and severe mental health issues. He challenged the decision based on Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The Administrative Court ruled in his favor, finding that his mental health issues justified indefinite leave to remain. However, by the time the appeal was heard, he had been granted indefinite leave to remain, rendering the issue academic. The court ultimately decided not to hear the appeal.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY: We have before us an appeal brought by the Secretary of State against an order made in the Administrative Court in judicial review proceedings. The respondent is a young man from Afghanistan who had the misfortune of witnessing the murder of his father and one of his brothers in 2005.
The respondent later came to this country and made an asylum claim whilst still a minor. That was not successful. The Secretary of State granted him limited leave to remain up to the age of 17 and a half, in accordance with her policy, she granted him further leave to remain.
The unfortunate reality is that the respondent has succumbed to extreme mental and psychological problems which are extensively described in the medical reports before us. There was a dispute about the implications of the medical evidence for the issue underlying this appeal but the diagnosis and prognosis were undisputed and uncontradicted. The respondent is receiving excellent care from the National Health Service of a kind which he would not receive in Afghanistan.
He sought indefinite leave to remain on the basis of his circumstances by reference to Article 3 and Article 8 of the ECHR. The outcome of his application was a grant of limited leave to remain with the prospect of making a further application which might ultimately result in a grant of indefinite leave to remain. It is that decision of the Secretary of State to grant him only limited but not indefinite leave to remain at the stage in question that is under challenge in these proceedings.
The application for judicial review was heard by His Honour Judge Anthony Thornton QC sitting as a Deputy Judge. He gave judgment on 14 June 2013. He found for the respondent as he now is under both Article 3 and Article 8, prompting the Secretary of State's appeal to this court.
The appeal was to be pursued with the permission of Beatson LJ, who thought that the appeal in relation to Article 3 was "clearly arguable." He was less convinced about the Article 8 appeal but gave leave on the basis that this court should consider all of the issues in the round.
We received skeleton arguments which we have carefully digested. We discussed the case in advance, as is our practice. However, this morning before coming into court we were informed of a recent development. The Secretary of State two days ago made a decision on a subsequent application of the respondent to grant him indefinite leave to remain. The date of