Regina v. Special Adjudicator
Encyclopedia
Regina v. Special Adjudicator ex parte
Ullah, also known as Doe v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 26 on appeal from [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, was a legal case in the United Kingdom
. 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.
Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
, composed of Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell. The decision was made on Thursday 17 June 2004.
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 judgment of Lord Bingham. Here it is stated (using the judgment of the Court of Appeal
, [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, as authority) that the Appellants, in order to rely on Article 9, would have to prove that the interference with Convention Rights was 'flagrant'. In the present case it was decided that the interference was not flagrant (see Paragraph 69-70 of the judgment by Lord Carswell for a brief discussion of the term 'flagrant'), which is why the appeal was dismissed in all courts.
Lord Walker and Baroness Hale delivered concurring judgments.
Ex parte
Ex parte is a Latin legal term meaning "from one party" .An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., Indian and U.S...
Ullah, also known as Doe v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 26 on appeal from [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, was a legal case in the United Kingdom
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
. 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.
Decision
This was a decision of the United KingdomUnited Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
Judicial functions of the House of Lords
The House of Lords, in addition to having a legislative function, historically also had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachment cases, and as a court of last resort within the United Kingdom. In the latter case the House's...
, composed of Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell. The decision was made on Thursday 17 June 2004.
The issue in the case was whether a person can be deported
Deportation
Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation...
from the United Kingdom to a state where there are known human rights
Human rights
Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Human rights are thus conceived as universal and egalitarian . These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national...
abuses, or refused asylum
Right of asylum
Right of asylum is an ancient juridical notion, under which a person persecuted for political opinions or religious beliefs in his or her own country may be protected by another sovereign authority, a foreign country, or church sanctuaries...
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
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...
other than Article 3 (no body shall be subjected to torture
Torture
Torture is the act of inflicting severe pain as a means of punishment, revenge, forcing information or a confession, or simply as an act of cruelty. Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, and coercion...
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 judgment of Lord Bingham. Here it is stated (using the judgment of the Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom above it...
, [2002] EWCA Civ 1856, as authority) that the Appellants, in order to rely on Article 9, would have to prove that the interference with Convention Rights was 'flagrant'. In the present case it was decided that the interference was not flagrant (see Paragraph 69-70 of the judgment by Lord Carswell for a brief discussion of the term 'flagrant'), which is why the appeal was dismissed in all courts.
Lord Walker and Baroness Hale delivered concurring judgments.