Article 8 case law - UK

Question 1

R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27

Answer 1

Established a five-stage test for assessing Article 8 claims in immigration cases, focusing on proportionality and the balance between individual rights and public interest.

Mr. Razgar, an Iraqi national, sought asylum in the UK, claiming that deportation to Germany (under the Dublin Regulation) would breach his human rights. He argued that he suffered from serious mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and that deportation would exacerbate his condition due to a lack of adequate support in Germany.

Razgar claimed that removing him to Germany would interfere with his private life under Article 8 because it would severely affect his mental health and rehabilitation process.

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed Razgar’s appeal but established an influential framework for considering Article 8 claims in immigration cases.

Question 2

Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11

Answer 2

Clarified that courts must carry out a full proportionality assessment in Article 8 cases, considering whether refusal of leave would result in consequences “of such gravity as to engage Article 8.”

Question 3

Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 40

Answer 3

Held that it was disproportionate to require a mother of a British child to return to her home country to apply for leave to remain when she would inevitably succeed in her application.

Question 4

Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39

Answer 4

Recognized that the impact of deportation on the entire family unit must be considered in Article 8 assessments.

Question 5

R (Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 840

Answer 5

Early case emphasizing the state’s right to control immigration but requiring a proportionality assessment when deportation affects family life.

Question 6

KO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 53

Answer 6

Clarified the assessment of “reasonableness” under Section 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 when a parent has a British child.

Question 7

Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60

Answer 7

Clarified the weight to be given to public interest in deportation cases involving criminal offenses, balancing it against Article 8 rights.

Question 8

Akinyemi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 2098

Answer 8

Considered deportation of a long-term UK resident and emphasized that proportionality assessments must account for individual circumstances.

Question 9

R (On the Application of Patel) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 72

Answer 9

Emphasized that private life under Article 8 does not provide an automatic right to remain based solely on long residence.

Question 10

AM (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 180

Answer 10

Examined the “very significant obstacles to integration” test under the Immigration Rules for private life claims.

Question 11

Rhuppiah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] UKSC 58

Answer 11

Clarified the interpretation of “precarious immigration status” in assessing Article 8 claims under the Immigration Rules.

Question 12

GS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40

Answer 12

Held that the deportation of seriously ill individuals does not violate Article 8 unless it results in inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3.

Question 13

Ajayi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 3

Answer 13

Addressed the implications of long-term care needs and the availability of medical support in the applicant’s home country under Article 8.

Question 14

Article 8(1) ECHR

Answer 14

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

Question 15

Article 8(2)

Answer 15

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as

is in accordance with the law and

is necessary in a democratic society

in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Question 16

The Ullah principle

Answer 16

The Ullah principle is a constitutional principle that requires UK courts to keep up with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence:

Explanation
The principle states that domestic courts should follow the ECtHR’s jurisprudence as it evolves, unless there are special circumstances. The principle’s core assumption is that domestic human rights law should mirror the ECtHR’s in scope and content.

Bingham states that Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 should be interpreted as stating that British courts “should, in the absence of some special circumstances, follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court”.

Question 17

Ullah / Do [2004] UKHL 26

Answer 17

The House of Lords dismissed both appeals.

1. Extraterritorial Effect of the ECHR:
   The Lords held that the ECHR does not generally impose an obligation on states to protect individuals from violations of their Convention rights by another state.
   The obligation of the UK is primarily territorial unless a case falls under exceptional circumstances, such as Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment).
2. Role of Articles 8 and 9:
   The Court ruled that Article 8 and Article 9 do not impose a duty on the UK to act as a guarantor of rights in another country unless there is a flagrant denial of the right in the receiving state.

A flagrant denial means a complete destruction of the right, which was not proven in either case.

Question 18

Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439