Case summaries

The Court held that detention is considered to be arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 ECHR, if the length of the detention exceeds what is reasonable for the purpose pursued. It is to be examined whether the authorities have acted with ‘due diligence’.

In cases, such as the present, where the detention has been upheld for a long period, although lawfully, authorities are required to take additional steps in order to proceed with an asylum claim more speedily. When the detained person can be considered as ‘vulnerable’ a higher level of ‘due diligence’ can be expected from the authorities. Even if the asylum claimant complicates the examination of his claim by not providing sufficient evidence, the failure of the authorities to take initiative to end the asylum claim, results in a violation of Article 5 § 1 ECHR.

The Secretary of State had appealed the decision of the FTT (supported by the Upper tribunal) on several grounds of error in law. The Court upheld the tribunal on the issue of whether they had considered the gravity of the respondent’s offences  (section 72 of the 2002 Act); but found that the tribunals had indeed erred when considering the application of Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention, and on the applicability of Article 8 ECHR. They consequently remitted the case of MM’s deportation to the Upper Tribunal for re-examination in its entirety, based on these errors in the previous decisions. The statement of the referral left open for the respondent the possibility of an appeal on the basis of Article 3 ECHR. 

The fact that riots took place in poorer neighbourhoods which resulted in sudden police charges to dispel the riots is insufficient for the application of Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive.

Applying the guidance on assessing internal protection found in Januzi and AH (Sudan) (see separate summaries), an applicant’s “home area” must be established as a matter of fact. The applicant’s social and economic position may assume particular importance where the applicant’s “home area” is rural and the area of proposed internal relocation is urban.

The rationale of the decision in HJ (Iran) (see separate summary in this database) applies to cases concerning political opinion. Consequently an individual cannot be expected to modify their political beliefs or deny their opinion in order to avoid persecution. The situation in Zimbabwe was exceptional. At that time, the country guidance held that those who were unable to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime were at risk of persecution. Thus, those with no political beliefs could not be required to profess their loyalty to the regime to avoid persecution and were entitled to refugee status.

The Tribunal considered whether a woman who had been involved in invasions of white-owned farms at the behest of the ruling party in Zimbabwe was excluded under Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Tribunal held, first of all, that Article 7(1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is usually regarded as providing the best working definition of a crime against humanity for the purposes of Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Secondly, it held that where the act or crime does not involve the specifically listed forms of acts or crimes, in order to consider that a crime against humanity had occurred, the Tribunal must consider if the acts participated in by the appellant were of a “similar character” to those specified in Article 7(1)(a) to (j) of the Statute. In so doing, the Tribunal must consider the specific purpose of the crime, its intent and effect, the participation of an appellant in the crime and if needs be whether the appellant made a substantial contribution to the crime.