R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.
Regina v. Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah

Do v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 26

on appeal from: [2002] EWCA Civ 1856

This was a decision of the United Kingdom Appellate Committee of the House of Lords decided on Thursday 17th June 2004 by a Committee comprising:

Lord Bingham of Cornwall

Lord Steyn

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Barroness Hale of Richmond

Lord Carswell

It should be noted that this was a joint decision, meaning two cases were heard at the same time, so the case may be cited as either of the case titles above.

The issue in the case was whether a person can be deported from the United Kingdom to a state where there are known human rights abuses, or refused asylum to the United Kingdom when the applicant is from such a state.

The appellants in the cases, Mr Ullah and Miss Do, wished to rely on an Article of the European Convention on Human Rights other than Article 3 [no body shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment]. The Appellants wished to rely on Article 9 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to freedom, thought and conscience. At first instance and in the Court of Appeal the Appellants' submissions were rejected and it was held that deporting a person too a country which violated Article 9 will not amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and thus an applicant could be deported to the state in violation of Article 9.

Particular notice should be drawn to Paragraph 4-6 of the judgement of Lord Bingham where it is stated that (using the judgement of the Court of Appeal, [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, as authority) in order rely on Article 9 the Appellants have to prove that the interference with Convention Rights was 'flagrant'. In the present case it was decided that the interference was not flagrant which is why the appeal was dismissed (this is the reason it was dismissed in all courts).

Also note Paragraph 26 (by Lord Styen) outlining the opinion of the House.

Lord Walker and Baronnes Hale delivered concurring judgements

See Paragraph 69-70 of the judgement (By Lord Carswell) for a brief discussion of the term 'flagrant'.

REDIRECT [[1]] - The Judgement for the case Regina v. Special Adjudicator

REDIRECT [[2]] For the European Convention on Human Rights

--Pdargue 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)