Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Article 2 and 3 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, it was held that Article 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of others.
      - R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept- positive obligation is not absolute:
        able to establish an Article 3 claim if he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him to risk of Article 3 ill-treatment
  - - - refoulement (forceable return of refugees or asylum seekers to their home country/another where they are at risk of danger/persecution
        
        R(AAA(Syria)) and Others v Secretary of State for Home Dept- The Supreme Court found that the UK Government's proposed policy to send certain people claiming asylum in the UK to Rwanda, in order to claim asylum there, was unlawful. It considered that there was a real risk that asylum claims would not be determined properly and that asylum seekers would in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin, where they would face a real risk of ill-treatment
        
        Decision based on three main factors: Rwanda's own poor human rights record; strong evidence from the UNHCR of systematic defects in its system for processing asylum claims; and its failure to abide by assurances it had given under a similar agreement it had made in the past with Israel.
        
        positive obligation- where individuals claim that their removal from the territory would cause a significant deterioration in their physical or mental health due to not having access to the same standards of medication and healthcare in their home countries
        
        Paposhvili v Belgium- confirmed that the UK's obligation not to deport an applicant on medical grounds would apply where there were:
        Substantial grounds for believing that the applicant, while not at imminent risk of dying, would face a real risk in the receiving country of being exposed either to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy
- - - - R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department- An inmate in a young offenders prison was killed by a known violent racist, especially when involuntarily in custody.
        Specifies that there must be an investigation which is public, independent, and involve the full participation of the family
        The prison investigation, enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality and criminal trial was not enough. The rejection of a public enquiry was a violation of Article 2
  - - - NHS Trust A v M and NHS Trust B v H found withdrawal of hydration and nutrition treatment would not breach article 2 as the prognosis was so poor
      - R(Pretty) v DPP and subsequent Strasbourg case Pretty v UK- re assisted suicide- where state has to apply balance to ensure a person does not die in an ‘inhumane or degrading way’ the state has an obligation to do what is reasonable to preserve life
      - Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust- Supreme court found the trust assumed responsibility and control over the patient who had been admitted when facing a real risk of suicide, to detain her under the mental health act and take reasonable steps to prevent real and immediate risk of suicide once released
      - R (Maguire) v His Majesty's Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Fylde- When there is investigatory obligation for death under state’s jurisdiction they have to investigate positive obligations. This concerned the decision of the coroner not to direct the inquest jury to return an 'expanded verdict' in relation to the death of Jackie Maguire, a 52-year-old woman who had Down's Syndrome and who lived under an order, in a care home for adults requiring round the-clock supervision. Supreme Court found that there had not been a breach of either the 'systems duty' or the 'operational duty'.an 'enhanced procedural obligation', in the form of an expanded verdict, designed to ensure appropriate accountability and redress, was not necessary