UK - The Queen (Hamdi Hussain Ali Hadey) v. Secretary of the State for the Home Department

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
22-05-2017
Citation:
[2017] UKUT B1 (IAC)
Court Name:
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Mr C M G Ockelton
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

The Court rejected the Applicant's challenges to the respondent's decision to certify his asylum claim and deport him, on the grounds (i) of his mistaken assessment of his probable situation if deported to Italy, (ii) of his misreading of the Dublin III Regulation, specifically insofar as it applies to effective remedy.   

Facts: 

Mr Hadey arrived in Italy in May 2015, where his fingerprints were taken. He made an irregular entry to the United Kingdom the following July and claimed asylum. The respondent proposed to certify his claim and remove him to Italy; he sought judicial review of the decision.

The applicant provided medical evidence, namely that he was depressed, a victim of torture and at risk of suicide.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The appellant's main objections to certification and removal were: first, that on removal to Italy he would face inhuman treatment in breach of his rights under Article 3 ECHR; this was rejected by the court with reference to a number of European  cases. Second, it was claimed that he had no 'effective remedy' against removal as required by article 27 of Dublin III; against this, the court found (par. 23) that United Kingdom law did provide such a remedy in the form of judicial review, which requires an investigation of whether the applicant’s rights will be violated and in the vast majority of cases suspension of the removal decision , and that the appellant's rights would not be violated in this case. Lastly, it was argued that the respondent failed to exercise the discretion she has to determine the claim. It was not clear (par 30) that the exercise of discretion was justiciable. Even if it was, there is no reason why the discretion should be exercised in this case (par 31). The Court concludes by stating that the transfer to Italy will be accompanied by information to prevent the applicant’s suicide risk. 

Outcome: 

Application denied; permission to appeal denied.

Observations/Comments: 

This case confirms the trend of NA (Sudan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060, that an Article 3 ECHR violation will not occur in a Dublin transfer to Italy. 

This case summary was written by Luke Hodgkin, LLM at Birkbeck University. 

Case Law Cited: 

ECtHR Paposhvili v Belgium, Application no 41738/10

UK - R (YZ and others) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 205

UK - Tabrizagh v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014]

UK - EM (Eritrea) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 1336

UK - R (on the application of Elayathamby) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2182 (Admin)