D v UK exception remains exceptional in medical treatment cases under Article 3

5 February 2015 by

Nurse-behind-frosted-glas-008GS (India) and Ors v SSHD  [2015] EWCA Civ 40 – read judgment 

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that foreign nationals may be removed from the UK even where their lives will be drastically shortened due to a lack of healthcare in their home states. Removal in those circumstances does not breach Articles 3 or 8 ECHR except in the most exceptional cases.

The appellants were foreign nationals suffering from very serious medical conditions (five from end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and one from an advanced stage of HIV infection). They were all receiving effective treatment here in the UK. All were at a high risk of very early death if returned to their home states, where the treatment they needed was unaffordable or simply unavailable. The Secretary of State nevertheless decided to remove them, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed their appeals. They appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that removal would breach their rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.

Laws LJ began by identifying the “paradigm case” of a breach of each Article, and then considered whether the present situations were sufficiently close to the paradigm to justify extending those Articles to cover them. None of them were.

Article 3

The paradigm case of a breach of Article 3 is “an intentional act which constitutes torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. A risk of death caused by a naturally occurring illness, combined with a lack of sufficient resources to deal with it in the receiving country, does not fall within that paradigm.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has allowed a limited extension to Article 3 in exceptional circumstances. In D v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 423, the applicant suffered from AIDS which was already terminal, and was receiving end-of-life care in the UK. The Court held, in view of the exceptionally poor conditions which he would face if returned to his home state of St Kitts, and bearing in mind the critical stage of his illness, that to remove him would amount to a violation of Article 3.

However the House of Lords in N v SSHD [2005] UKHL 31 – affirmed by the ECtHR in N v UK (2008) 47 EHRR 39 – made clear that this exception is subject to a very high threshold. D’s condition was already terminal; as Lord Nicholls put it, “there was no question of imposing any such obligation [to provide medical care] on the United Kingdom. D was dying, and beyond the reach of medical treatment then available” (paragraph 15). The key feature in D was not that removal would cause or accelerate his death – the right to life being the province of Article 2, not Article 3 – but that it would lead to him dying in inhuman and degrading conditions.

None of the appellants fell within this category. Although they were likely to die quickly once treatment stopped – the five appellants suffering from ESKD would have only about 2-3 weeks to live without dialysis – they were not dying yet. Article 3, even in light of the D exception, did not impose an obligation on the UK to continue to provide medical treatment indefinitely.

That conclusion was not affected by any of the more recent cases relied on by the appellants. Each of those cases, said Laws LJ, had particular features justifying a departure from the Article 3 paradigm. In Sufi v UK (2012) 54 EHRR 9, the crisis in the applicant’s home state of Somalia was predominantly due to the deliberate actions of the parties to the conflict. Similarly in MSS v Belgium and Greece (2011) 53 EHRR 2, Greece was found to be responsible for the inhuman conditions to which the applicant asylum seeker would be subjected if he was returned there by Belgium. Although that is not quite the paradigm case of an intentional act by the receiving state, the Court tends to attach particular importance to the treatment of asylum seekers; Tarakhel v Switzerland (Application No. 29217/12) was another example. The situations are therefore different and, as Laws LJ made clear at paragraph 62:

the fact that there are other exceptions unlike D or N does not touch cases – such as these – where the claimant’s appeal is to the very considerations which D and N address”.

Various further arguments about Article 3 did not help the appellants. Evidence of changed circumstances – a potential transplant for GM and evidence of increased risk to KK in the DRC – would have to be raised in fresh claims before the Secretary of State. The fact that KK had always been lawfully resident in the UK could not exempt him from the rigours of the D exception, and the Upper Tribunal’s approach to the facts in his case disclosed no error of law.

Article 8

The failure of the Article 3 claims was not fatal to those under Article 8. Article 8 concerns different paradigms, the one identified as relevant in this case being the capacity to form and enjoy relationships. However, this also means that it is not enough to rely on the same facts as those which failed to bring the case within the Article 3 paradigm. Something more is needed.

In three of the cases, GS, EO and BA, the Court of Appeal refused even to consider the Article 8 claims because the appellants had not pursued them before the Upper Tribunal. Laws LJ took the view that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to consider a point which was not before the Upper Tribunal, except where it was obvious in the sense of having a strong prospect of success. That was not the case here. Underhill LJ, with whom Sullivan LJ agreed, preferred to exclude those arguments as a matter of discretion. He noted that all three appellants appeared to have made a considered decision not to rely on them before the Tribunal, even though Article 8 had been a live issue earlier in the proceedings. He might have considered allowing Article 8 points to be argued if any of the appellants had a strong case on that ground, but none of them did.

In GM’s case, the Secretary of State accepted that it was arguable that the Upper Tribunal had not adequately considered the Article 8 claim and agreed that it should be remitted for reconsideration.

As for KK and PL, neither could show any additional factual element sufficient to bring them within the Article 8 paradigm. KK’s family life was “overwhelmingly in the DRC” and his Article 8 claim was, in reality, based solely on the medical treatment which he receives here. Underhill LJ added that the Upper Tribunal had found that he would receive proper treatment in the DRC, so his claim could not get off the ground in any event. KK challenged the Tribunal’s approach to the facts, but the Court found no error of law.

Laws LJ said simply that there were no factors in PL’s case which might give rise to a claim under Article 8 when there was none under Article 3. Underhill LJ pointed out that PL had been in the UK illegally for almost all of his stay, had made friends knowing that he had no right to remain here, and had no family ties in the UK.

All of the appeals therefore failed, except for GM’s Article 8 appeal which will go back to the Upper Tribunal. GM has always been in the UK lawfully and, although there is little information in the judgment about his private or family life here, the fact that he has a friend in the UK who is willing to give him a kidney may offer a glimmer of hope. Laws LJ also hinted that GM may wish to make a fresh Article 3 claim on the basis of that possible transplant. However, in the light of the restrictive approach taken by the Court of Appeal, it seems unlikely that that will be enough to bring him within the D exception. As for the other claims, permission to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal but may now be sought from the Supreme Court.

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

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.




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 coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid 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 Facial Recognition 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 nuisance 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 prosecutions 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 Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum 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 sweatshops 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


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: