Page values for "BA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013"

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetime2017-07-11 6:05:39 PM
_modificationDateDatetime2019-05-01 11:10:43 PM
_creatorStringJonathan
_fullTextSearchtext{{Case |Date=2017/05/12 |NCN=[2017] UKAITUR IA343212013 |Other citations=[2017] MHLO 26 |Court=Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) |Judges=Frances |Parties=BA, Secretary of State for the Home Department |Sentence=Article 3 immigration case |Summary="The Appellant is a citizen of Nig ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |2017 cases Cases Judgment available on Bailii No summary Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function Repatriation cases Transcript Judgment_available_on_Bailii
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringBA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013
_pageIDInteger9,004
_pageNamePageBA v SSHD (2017) UKAITUR IA343212013
_pageTitleString

BA v SSHD [2017] UKAITUR IA343212013

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Cases" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
SentenceWikitext

Article 3 immigration case

SummaryWikitext

"The Appellant is a citizen of Nigeria born on 26th February 1980. His appeal against a refusal to vary leave was allowed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Abebrese on Article 8 grounds on 23 rd May 2016. ... The Appellant sought permission to appeal against the Article 3 findings only ... On the basis of the factual findings, the opinion in the Amnesty International Report and the opinion of Dr Bell, the Appellant is likely to suffer a breakdown at some point on return to Nigeria whether that be at the airport or some time later. He is likely to come to the attention of the police if he has such a breakdown and he would not be able to access the psychiatric hospital in Lagos because he is unable to afford treatment there. Accordingly, it is likely that he would be held in prison where the conditions for this particular Appellant with his particular condition would result in treatment in breach of Article 3. ... The Applicant would not be at risk of Article 3 treatment because of a heightened risk of suicide. He would, however, be at risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 because of the conditions of return. ... The medical evidence indicates that the Appellant is vulnerable to relapse even in the UK and without the threat of removal. His removal to Nigeria is likely to trigger a relapse and his behaviour will draw hostile attention. His treatment by the authorities in detaining him under the Lunacy Act 1958 would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. There is a reasonable degree of likelihood that he would be detained in a prison, there would be no treatment for his mental health, his situation would deteriorate, the length of detention is indeterminate, there is no right of appeal and there is no requirement for him to consent to treatment. Accordingly, I allow the Appellant's appeal on Article 3 grounds."

DetailText
SubjectList of String, delimiter: ,Repatriation cases
Judicial_historyWikitext
Judicial_history_first_pagePage
DateDate2017-05-12
JudgesList of String, delimiter: ,Frances
PartiesList of String, delimiter: ,BA Secretary of State for the Home Department
CourtStringUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
NCNString[2017] UKAITUR IA343212013
MHLRString
ICLRString
ICLR_IDString
EssexString
Essex_issueString
Essex_pageString
Other_citationsList of String, delimiter: ,[2017] MHLO 26
CitesList of String, delimiter: #
External_linksText
JudgmentFile