Court of Appeal dismisses Government’s appeal in Afghan deportation case (24 February 2026)

The Court of Appeal dismisses the Secretary of State’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s determination that a vulnerable victim of modern slavery from Afghanistan faces a risk to his life and inhuman and degrading treatment on return there.

Background

KS is an Afghan national who arrived in the UK as a child. His father (an Afghan army employee) was murdered in Afghanistan. He later learned his mother and sister had also died. KS has been recognised as a victim of trafficking/modern slavery and has severe mental ill-health, including complex PTSD and depression.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed the SSHD’s appeal and upheld the FTT and UT decisions allowing KS’s appeal on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. The Court held that, although the FTT’s reasoning was “somewhat compressed” [53] it was sufficient and disclosed no error of law. In doing so, it reaffirmed the restrained approach to appellate scrutiny of specialist FTT decisions set out in Kapikanya.

The Court was explicit that the Home Office did not lose because of any general finding about deporting adult male Afghans. The Court added it is “often said that the most important target audience of a judgment is the losing party who needs to understand why they lost.” [52]. The SSHD lost because it had been served with a substantial body of carefully argued expert evidence and failed to challenge it, including by requiring key experts to attend for cross-examination [52]. The FTT judge had to therefore “deal with the case on the basis that there was little if any challenge.” [55].

Thus, the determinative features of the FTT’s judgement were the unchallenged expert evidence on KS’s particular vulnerabilities, including risk of re-trafficking and Westernisation-related risk engaging Article 3.

Read the full judgement here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2026/149.html.

Significance of the Case

Ben Cartwright, the lead Solicitor representing KS, stated: "It is hoped the SSHD will adhere to the Court of Appeal’s judgement and in future engage fully with the First-tier Tribunal in the first instance and not seek to further re-litigate issues decided by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, the specialist Tribunal set up to decide such matters.”

KS is represented by Ben Cartwright and Vilash Gami of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, with Maha Sardar and Mark Symes of Garden Court Chambers, as Counsel

About the Instructing Team

Ben Cartwright, a Solicitor in the Public Law, Immigration, and Civil Liberties and Human Rights departments at Duncan Lewis, brings a wealth of experience to his role. Since joining the firm in April 2017, he has developed expertise in diverse issues related to asylum, judicial review representing a number of clients from the High Court to the European Court of Human Rights. Ben is actively involved in assisting clients, regularly taking instructions on a broad spectrum of matters, including urgent cases and applications out of hours. Ben has further obtained significant damages for clients in challenges arising from unlawful detention and failures by the SSHD in accommodating vulnerable asylum seekers.

Contact Ben via email at BenC@duncanlewis.com or via telephone on 020 7275 2622.

Vilash Gami, a director in the immigration department, oversees a team of solicitors and caseworkers, specialising in asylum, human rights, and public law. Recognised as a Recommended Lawyer in the 2024 edition of The Legal 500, Vilash is acknowledged for her outstanding contributions to Administrative and Public Law, as well as her work in Civil Liberties and Human Rights across London.

Contact Vilash via email at vilashk@duncanlewis.com or via telephone on 020 3114 117.

Duncan Lewis - Public Law Team

Duncan Lewis’ Public Law team, ranked in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 UK directories, has a broad practice representing both privately and publicly funded (legal aid) clients in matters involving immigration; asylum and human rights and deportation matters, with a niche practice in immigration and civil liberties claimant judicial review matters. They have significant practice in challenging delays in Home Office decision-making, unlawful immigration detention cases with high net claims for damages and challenging immigration removal decisions, particularly third country removal cases.