Simon Aruchanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 282 (KB)
FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
20 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1357
Court of Appeal
A refugee's mental health worsened due to a delay in his immigration case. The court said the government didn't owe him a special duty to act quickly and that the delay wasn't so bad as to violate his human rights.
Key Facts
- •FXJ, a Somali refugee with severe mental illness, experienced a relapse during a delay in the Home Office's decision on his refugee status.
- •The delay included the Home Office initiating and withdrawing a late appeal.
- •FXJ sued for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and breach of Article 8 ECHR.
- •Expert psychiatric evidence confirmed the Home Office delay significantly worsened FXJ's relapse.
- •The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding no duty of care and no breach of Article 8.
- •FXJ appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Public bodies do not ordinarily owe a duty of care when fulfilling public functions, unless an exception applies.
Poole Borough Council v GN and another [2019] UKSC 25
A critical distinction exists between causing harm (or making things worse) and failing to confer a benefit (or not making things better).
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4
Litigants do not generally owe a duty of care to each other regarding conduct of litigation.
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2006] UKHL 28
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) can be engaged by foreseeable consequences for health of administrative delays, even without violating Article 3.
R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27
In assessing Article 8 claims, courts must consider whether interference is proportionate to the legitimate public end.
R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 27
Culpable delay in administrative processes can breach Article 8 if it causes substantial prejudice.
Anufrijeva v London Borough of Southwark [2003] EWCA Civ 1406
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the Home Office owed no common law duty of care to FXJ. The delay, while an aggravating factor in FXJ's mental health relapse, was not considered a breach of Article 8 because it was not substantial or serious enough, and any interference was justified by the legitimate aim of effective immigration control.
Negligence claim dismissed.
The court found the claim was based on a failure to confer a benefit (prompt decision on refugee status), not causing harm. No additional basis for a duty of care (e.g., creating danger or assuming responsibility) was established.
Article 8 claim dismissed.
The five-month delay, while aggravating FXJ’s existing mental health issues, was deemed not substantial or serious enough to constitute a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights. The legitimate aim of effective immigration control justified the delay.
Similar Cases
NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
Guren Zhou & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 81
R (MQ) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 205 (Admin)
IS (Bangladesh), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 3130 (Admin)