Immigration Solicitors

Under the Dublin II Regulation, the United Kingdom can return asylum seekers to another Member State where the asylum seeker have lodged a claim for asylum, and that the Member State shall be obliged to take back the responsibility of determining the claim. It is known that Member States that are regarded as ‘safe third countries’ (with the exception of a few countries) would in theory offer the same consideration to the asylum seekers’ claim as the UK authorities would.

In many cases involving asylum seekers with medical or mental health condition and/or suicidal tendencies, it is widely accepted that if the receiving state is informed of the relevant condition(s), the responsibility then lies on the receiving state to look after the welfare and safety of the asylum seeker once he/she has been transferred into their jurisdiction. Alternatively, if the asylum seeker alleges that their human rights would be breached by the authorities in the receiving state, the burden of proof lies on the asylum seeker to prove these allegations.

But in exceptional cases involving the transfer of vulnerable, suicidal asylum seekers who are in need of care, what are the obligations of the Secretary of State when transferring the asylum seeker? Is it sufficient to merely inform the receiving state of the asylum seeker’s condition or do the duties of the Secretary of State stretch further than that?

Duncan Lewis dealt with a recent exceptional case involving a severely mentally ill asylum seeker who has had a history of self-harming and suicidal attempts, which is not linked to any threat of removal. He has also been under constant watch for over 3 months following a serious suicide attempt. The Secretary of State in this case confirmed that the receiving state was informed of our client’s condition but refused to specify what reception arrangements have been agreed with the authorities at the receiving state.

Believing that our client would attempt to commit suicide at the first opportunity upon arriving in the receiving state if no adequate reception arrangements are in place, we sought an injunction restraining the Secretary of State from removing our client. Counsel instructed is Mr Christopher Jacobs from Landmark Chambers. The injunction was granted on 12 June 2013 by the honourable Mr Justice Collins stating that in view of the medical evidence, our client should not be removed from the jurisdiction of England and Wales:

1. Unless the receiving authorities are aware of our client’s condition and proper reception arrangements are in place and our client is kept under necessary care during the removal process;


2. The Secretary of State must notify the Court and us, as our client’s solicitors as to the nature of the arrangements prior to any removal; and


3. The Secretary of State must satisfy the Court that our client is fit to travel prior to any removal.

This order by Mr Justice Collins shifts the burden on to the Secretary of State to ensure that there are proper reception arrangements in place. Where transfers of vulnerable asylum seekers are concerned, the Secretary of State cannot now relinquish her responsibility to the asylum seeker by merely trusting that the receiving state would offer sufficient care. At the time this article was written, the Secretary of State has not confirmed any proposed arrangements for our client’s transfer. Nevertheless this bold order by Mr Justice Collins would no doubt serve to protect the safety and welfare of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers who may be at real risk of harm during their transfer process to a ‘safe third country’.

By Iylicia Weston