Key Facts
- •Appeal against Bristol County Court order awarding damages under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of Article 3 ECHR.
- •Respondents (Claimants) were non-British single mothers with British children, granted limited leave to remain (LLTR) with a 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) condition.
- •Claimants' financial circumstances deteriorated due to the NRPF condition, leading to destitution.
- •The old NRPF scheme was declared unlawful in R (W) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 1 WLR 4420.
- •Claimants argued damages were owed for breach of procedural rights under Article 3 ECHR due to the unlawful NRPF scheme.
- •The County Court judge awarded substantial damages, stayed pending this appeal.
- •The appeal focuses on whether damages are payable for breach of Article 3 procedural rights without proof of actual inhuman or degrading treatment (IDT).
Legal Principles
Article 3 ECHR prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
European Convention on Human Rights
Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows courts to grant remedies for breaches of Convention rights, including damages.
Human Rights Act 1998
Damages under section 8 require a causal link between the violation and the damage; mere speculation is insufficient.
Human Rights Act 1998 & ECtHR Practice Direction
Article 3 imposes not only a prohibition on inflicting IDT but also a proactive duty to avoid the risk of imminent Article 3 breach where the state's acts create such a risk.
Case law interpretation of Article 3
A state's duty under Article 3 may include a systems duty, operational duty, and procedural/investigative duty. The Claimants' case focuses on a low-level systems duty.
Case law interpretation of Article 3
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; County Court's decision quashed.
The judge failed to identify the nature and scope of the Article 3 violation, misconstrued the decision in R (W), and misunderstood the conditions and scope of Article 3's procedural duty. The Claimants failed to show a breach of Article 3 because they did not demonstrate that the Home Office wrongly decided their applications to lift the NRPF condition or unreasonably delayed doing so.