JS (Suicide risks, Articles 3 and 8) Sri Lanka

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the determination of an Adjudicator, Mr. Mark-Bell, dated 25 March 2003, who dismissed the appeal of the Appellant against the Secretary of State’s decision on 6 December 2000 refusing asylum and leave to enter the United Kingdom. The Appellant, a married woman and citizen of Sri Lanka, arrived in the UK in October 2000 with her husband, both making separate asylum claims. The asylum claim was abandoned at the Adjudicator hearing, and the claim proceeded on the basis that removal would breach Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), considering both the Appellant’s own circumstances and the impact of her husband’s psychiatric condition upon her if returned to Sri Lanka. By the time of the hearing, the Appellant had given birth to a baby girl.

The Appellant is a Christian ethnic Tamil who alleged recruitment by the LTTE in 1989 and suffered rape by Sri Lankan army soldiers in 1998, resulting in physical and mental trauma including PTSD. The Adjudicator accepted the rape and PTSD claims but rejected claims of threats from the LTTE and fears of ill-treatment by the army. The Adjudicator found that adequate medical facilities existed in Sri Lanka and concluded removal would not breach Article 3. On Article 8, the Adjudicator found the risk did not reach the high threshold required. The husband’s appeal had been dismissed on asylum and Article 3 grounds but allowed on Article 8 due to suicide risk, with the Appellant’s appeal considered separately.

Subsequent to the Adjudicator’s decision, new medical evidence was submitted regarding the Appellant’s mental health, including diagnoses of PTSD and Post-Natal Depression, risk of suicide or self-harm, and the impact of the husband’s psychiatric condition and suicide attempt. The Secretary of State’s appeal in the husband’s case was allowed, with findings that he did not face a real risk of persecution or breach of rights on return. The Appellant’s case was then reconsidered in light of this updated evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether removal of the Appellant to Sri Lanka would breach Article 3 ECHR due to her mental health condition and risk of suicide.
2. Whether removal would breach Article 8 ECHR considering the Appellant’s family life and the impact of her husband’s psychiatric condition on her.
3. Whether the Adjudicator erred in failing to consider the combined effect of the husband’s condition on the Appellant’s claim.
4. The appropriate threshold for engaging Articles 3 and 8 in cases involving mental illness and suicide risk.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Adjudicator failed to consider the impact of the husband’s psychiatric condition and suicide risk on the Appellant’s mental health under Articles 3 and 8.
• The adverse effect on the husband’s condition and consequent traumatization would materially affect the Appellant, especially as a mother with a baby.
• The combined effect of their situations should have been considered, rather than hearing the appeals separately.
• The Appellant’s mental health condition, including diagnosed PTSD and Post-Natal Depression, and risk of suicide, engaged the protections of Articles 3 and 8.

Respondent's Arguments (Secretary of State)

• The Appellant could not “reopen” the husband’s appeal by relying on his condition in her own case.
• The cases of the Appellant and her husband were properly heard separately, and the husband’s appeal had been decided against him.
• The Appellant’s case did not meet the high threshold required for protection under Articles 3 or 8.
• There was adequate medical treatment available in Sri Lanka, particularly in Colombo, and the Appellant would not be returned to the area where the trauma occurred.
• Letters from community members portrayed the couple as active and able to cope, conflicting with the medical evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully examined the Appellant’s medical evidence, including diagnoses of PTSD and Post-Natal Depression, and the submitted reports evidencing risk of suicide and self-harm. The Court noted the husband's psychiatric condition and suicide attempts, acknowledging that while his appeal had been resolved against him, his condition was relevant to the Appellant’s claim as it materially affected her ability to cope with removal. The Court found that the Adjudicator erred in dismissing the relevance of the husband’s condition on the Appellant’s appeal simply because their cases were heard separately.

Applying the legal principles established in leading authorities such as Ullah, Razgar, and Soumahoro, the Court reiterated that Articles 3 and 8 require a high threshold of harm to prevent removal, with flagrant or fundamental breaches necessary to override immigration control interests. The Court observed that mental illness and suicide risk do not alter the extremity requirement for Article 3 and that Article 8 may be engaged by mental health consequences of removal but can be justified by immigration control except in exceptional cases.

The Court accepted that the Appellant’s individual risk did not meet the threshold for breach of Article 3 or Article 8 on its own, but the combined effect of her husband’s condition was a material factor that had not been considered. This omission required the case to be remitted for rehearing, allowing a panel to consider the current and combined circumstances of both Appellant and husband without reopening the husband’s appeal.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to REMIT the Appellant’s case for rehearing before a different Adjudicator or a panel of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

This remittal acknowledges that the husband’s psychiatric condition and its impact on the Appellant are relevant considerations under Articles 3 and 8, which were improperly disregarded in the original determination. The rehearing will assess the combined effect of both parties’ circumstances without reopening the husband’s appeal. No new precedent is established beyond the application of existing legal principles to the facts of this case. The decision clarifies the importance of considering the interconnectedness of family members’ claims in removal cases, especially where mental health and suicide risks are involved.