Human rights and judicial review in the past year – Part 4/4: Article 12, the right to marry

26 October 2010 by

This post is adapted from a presentation given at the Justice Human Rights Law Conference, and will be split into four parts. Part 1 can be found here, part 2 here and part 3 here.

Today, in the final part of this series, I concentrate on recent cases involving Article 12, the right to marry and a couple of other notable cases. You can find previous posts on Article 12 here.


ARTICLE 12: Right to marry

Forced Marriages and the marriage visa age

R (Quila) v. SSHD [2009] EWHC 3189 (Admin), Burnett J

This case concerned a challenge to the raising of the minimum age (from 18 to 21) to obtain a marriage visa – or sponsor someone to obtain a marriage visa. This change was implemented as part of the Government‟s efforts to combat forced marriages. Before Burnett J, the case was argued and decided on the basis of Article 8; the young couple having married in the UK, but unable to live together in the UK after the Chilean husband‟s application for leave to remain in the UK (following expiry of his student visa) was refused. The refusal was solely on the basis of that his British wife was still 17 at the date of the visa application (so she would in fact have been too young even under the previous version of the rule). However, in the appeal before the Court of Appeal [heard on 21 and 22 October 2010 – judgment reserved]  it is to be argued – although not by the Claimant in Quila, that the Immigration Rule and policy constitutes a breach of Article 12 as well as Articles 8 and 14).

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

R (S) v. SSHD, Amnesty International and the AIRE Centre intervening [2010] EWHC 705 (Admin), Cranston J – read our post

At first instance, Cranston J held that the SSHD had to take into account an individual’s rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, but none of those rights were directly enforceable against the SSHD, and a transfer (of the Claimant to Greece) under the Dublin Regulation could not be challenged on the basis that it was incompatible with them. An appeal to the CA was reportedly successful on the issue of the direct enforceability of the EU Charter rights, but no judgment is yet available [Correction – I am informed by the CA Office that in fact the only decision made by the CA thus far is to make a reference to the ECJ]. Clearly, the outcome of this case has the potential to broaden the range of rights available to be relied upon, based on the Charter, in domestic proceedings.

Gay rights and asylum

HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 – read our post

The SC held that the government‟s “Anne Frank” policy of sending back gay refugees to their home countries where they feared persecution was contrary to their rights under the Refugee Convention. Strictly speaking, this was not a Human Rights case, as it was decided purely under the Refugee Convention. HJ and HT are both homosexual men and had been persecuted in their home countries – Iran and Cameroon respectively – after their sexual orientation had been discovered. The CA had dismissed the men‟s appeals on the basis that the consequences for the men would be “reasonably tolerable”. Lord Rodger (who along with the rest of the SC rejected the test of „reasonable tolerability and allowed the appeal) stated:

In short, what is protected is the applicant’s right to live freely and openly as a gay man. That involves a wide spectrum of conduct, going well beyond conduct designed to attract sexual partners and maintain relationships with them. To illustrate the point with trivial stereotypical examples from British society: just as male heterosexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates. Mutatis mutandis – and in many cases the adaptations would obviously be great – the same must apply to other societies. In other words, gay men are to be as free as their straight equivalents in the society concerned to live their lives in the way that is natural to them as gay men, without the fear of persecution.

However, “simple discriminatory treatment” on grounds of sexual orientation does not give rise to protection under the Convention. Nor does the risk of family or societal disapproval, even trenchantly expressed. Nevertheless, persecution does not cease to be persecution for the purposes of the Convention because those persecuted can eliminate the harm by taking avoiding action. It remains to be seen whether the principle extends to the open expression of political opinion, the CA in TM (Zimbabwe) and others v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 916 having declined to decide the issue while nonetheless sketching out the field of argument (Elias LJ at [31-42]).

The full conference paper which includes all four parts of this series and footnotes can be downloaded here. You can find previous posts on Article 12 here.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

1 comment;


  1. Amin says:

    Dear Sirs

    I would like to know that what is the rights for refugees in the uk to marry and bring thier wife over here.

    thanks

Comments are closed.

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 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: