R. (Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
R. (Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was a case decided on 3 November 2005 by the UK House of Lords that determined whether or not a delay in initiating an application to seek asylum limited an individual from receiving access to state relief.[1] Furthermore, the case questioned whether this denial of state relief constituted a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 ('ECHR').[1]
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (January 2021) |
R. (Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | |
---|---|
Court | House of Lords |
Decided | 3 November 2005 |
Citation(s) | [2005] UKHL 66 |
Transcript(s) | [2005 UKHL 66] |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2004] EWCA Civ 540 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Lord Bingham Lord Brown |
The Home Office refused the claimants state support under Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act 2002,[2] under the basis that the asylum seekers did not make their claim as soon as reasonably practical.[3] Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and/or punishment of individuals.[4] In this case, the court observed that due to this refusal of state support, Yusif Adam, Wayoka Limbuela and Binyam Tefera Tesema were exposed to the risk of being homeless, were without access to food and were prevented from working while waiting for their application to be processed.[5] These circumstances were thus considered to be an Article 3 violation, and led the House of Lords to dismiss the Appeal with costs and grant state relief to the claimants under Section 55(5) of the Act.[1]
Following this judgment, asylum seekers who apply late may receive accommodation and financial support if the alternative is a real risk of destitution and a violation of human rights.[1]