Article 3 and the minimum standard of social support

18 November 2009 by

R (on the application of EW) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2009] EWHC 2957 (Admin) 18 November 2009 – read judgment

Summary and comment by Rosalind English

Article 3 does not dictate a minimum standard of social support for those in need, nor does it require the state to provide a home or minimum level of financial assistance to all within its care.

SUMMARY

W was an Eritrean national who had entered the UK illegally. Fingerprint evidence traced his irregular entry into the EC to Italy following which the UK authorities sought from the Italian authorities an undertaking to accept responsibility for W’s application for asylum under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation. Italy did not respond and therefore it was deemed to have accepted responsibility for the asylum claim by default.

Against this background, W’s UK claim for asylum refused and certified on safe third country grounds. W applied to remain in the UK due to family ties, but the secretary of state refused that request. W made further representations to the secretary of state to the effect that to remove him to Italy would be in breach of his rights under Article 3 of the convention on the grounds that conditions for asylum seekers in Italy were such that they amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to that provision. The secretary of state subsequently rejected W’s claims under the Convention and certified them as unfounded, and W challenged the lawfulness of that decision. He contended that his return to Italy would place the UK in breach of its obligations under Article 3 because, as an asylum seeker, he would face a real risk of destitution and humiliation there; and that, in any event, the secretary of state ought to have considered exercising his discretion to accept responsibility for dealing with W’s asylum claim because of patent failures by the Italian authorities to respect their obligations under the Convention and various European Union Directives as they related to asylum seekers.

Held:

Application refused.

There was no general right to accommodation or a minimum standard of living that could be drawn from the Convention or European law, or from domestic human rights, social or other legislation. The setting of such a minimum standard was a matter for social legislation, not the courts, and the extent to which one member state of the European Union could be expected to police the asylum policy of another was limited. There was a presumption that a friendly state would comply with its international obligations, and there was no evidence of the Italian authorities systematically, routinely or even regularly frustrating the making or pursuit of an asylum application, or delaying the determination of asylum applications to any unreasonable degree, or failing to provide appropriate information to those seeking asylum. In respect of the living conditions to which W would be subjected if returned to Italy, whilst poor living conditions could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3, that provision did not prescribe a minimum standard of social support for those in need, and did not require the state to provide a home or minimum level of financial assistance to all within its care. W had failed to satisfy the court that his treatment in Italy would meet the high threshold or “inhuman and degrading” within the meaning of the Article.

The secretary of state was, therefore, justified in certifying W’s human rights claim as clearly unfounded and any appeal against that decision would, on the evidence, be bound to fail.

As for W’s second ground of appeal, there was no evidence that the Italian authorities avoided or sought to avoid their international obligations towards asylum seekers, therefore the premise for this claim was false, and that ground had to fail also.

COMMENT (December 2009)

This is another one of these “extra-territorial” cases where the claimant relies on the Convention obligations of the respondent state for acts or omissions by a third country. The Administrative Court in this instance was not being asked to consider whether the acts of the United Kingdom would directly result in the claimant’s destitution here: but rather whether the conditions for asylum seekers in Italy are such that, if returned there, the claimant risked destitution, with the result that the United Kingdom would be in breach of its article 3.

Whilst the courts in this country are free to decide on the evidence whether a third country is “safe” in the sense that no risk of breach of the Convention arises should the applicant be returned thence, there are limitations in the asylum context. The decision of the House of Lords in Limbuela (R (on the application of Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 66, (2006) 1 AC 396) is quite clear on this point; as Lord Hope pointed out

“The question whether, and if so in what circumstances, support should be given at the expense of the state to asylum seekers is, of course, an intensely political issue”

And, he went on to say, engagement in this “political” issue is no part of the judicial function. Nor should it be. For living conditions to amount to a breach of Article 3, there has to be positive action by the state, rather than mere passivity on its part, and the action has to result in conditions for a claimant that met the very high threshold for inhuman and degrading treatment set by that provision.

Again, Limbuela establishes this as a firm limiting principle in the application of Convention jurisprudence; Hickinbottom J summarises the position at para 91:

“The nature of a state’s obligation under article 3 is clearly set out in Limbuela. The article is aimed at positive acts of state-sponsored violence. If they meet the threshold of seriousness (to which I shall come shortly), such acts are absolutely prohibited. Where the acts are not directly those of the state, the state will only be the subject of this prohibition if it supports such acts by positive, intentionally inflicted acts of its own. What amounts to “positive action” will no doubt depend upon the circumstances of a particular case and, in some circumstances, the state may be required to take positive steps to prevent ill-treatment at the hands of others (see, e.g., R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38 at [24] per Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2008] UKHL 66 at [44] per Lord Carswell, and R (B) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin) at [65]).”

So it is not incumbent on the UK courts to scrutinize the social welfare provisions of other countries for compatibility with the Convention. Nevertheless, the judge in this case did hear evidence of Italian law in this context, and it transpired that under Italian law, the Italian state has no obligation to house anyone. Not even an Italian national has any right to accommodation in Italy. It would be politically insane of any government to give asylum seekers privileged status in this regard and beyond insanity for any other government to dictate that it should.

Hickinbottom J observes, at para 25 of the judgment, that this application, looked at in one way, arguably seeks to extend the rights guaranteed by the ECHR. No such extension is countenanced any longer; the extra-territorial reach of the Convention has clearly extended far enough.

Read judgment

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: