Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant appealed the determination of an Adjudicator who dismissed his appeal against the Secretary of State's decision to issue removal directions to Lithuania dated 21 May 2001. The Appellant is a member of a small Protestant Evangelical Church founded in Lithuania in 1993 by the Pastor. The congregation arrived in the United Kingdom in small groups in 2000, and the Adjudicator heard this appeal alongside others, dismissing all but granting permission to appeal in this case. The Appellant and other members of the congregation live in Liverpool with the Pastor, while another group is based in the north east under the Deacon’s leadership. The Pastor’s asylum application was refused, with his appeal still pending. The congregation expressed a willingness to leave the UK if the Pastor were deported, wishing to follow him wherever he went.
The Adjudicator analyzed the evidence, noting the Pastor’s foundational role in churches in Lithuania, Latvia, and Georgia, the functioning of the church under the Deacon during the Pastor’s absences, and the congregation’s strong attachment to the Pastor. The Adjudicator also considered the refusal of the Pastor’s re-entry to Lithuania in 1999 and the congregation’s subsequent movements through Poland and other countries before arriving in the UK. The Adjudicator found that removal would limit the Appellant’s freedom to manifest religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights but ultimately dismissed the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the decision to remove the Appellant to Lithuania engaged rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
- Whether the limitation on the Appellant’s religious freedom by removal was proportionate and justified under the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and immigration control.
- Whether the refusal of the Pastor’s re-entry to Lithuania and the resulting separation of the congregation from their religious leader constituted a breach of the Appellant’s human rights.
- Whether the Adjudicator erred in his assessment of the evidence, particularly regarding the survival of the church without the Pastor and the weight given to immigration control considerations.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Pastor’s presence is fundamental to the survival and spiritual life of the church; removal would effectively destroy the church’s exercise of religious rights.
- The congregation’s dependence on the Pastor is akin to a family relationship, making the case unusual or unique.
- The Adjudicator erred in drawing inferences contrary to the evidence, particularly regarding the church’s ability to survive without the Pastor.
- The Adjudicator gave excessive weight to immigration control and failed to properly balance the interference with religious rights against the legitimate aims.
- Relied on authorities emphasizing the importance of communal worship and protection of religious communities under Article 9 and the Human Rights Act.
Respondent's Arguments
- Asylum was no longer pursued, and no breach of Article 3 was alleged.
- The Appellant’s removal was proportionate and justified by a legitimate aim of controlling immigration.
- The congregation came to the UK to exercise their rights, but the right of a state to control entry of non-nationals is recognized under international law.
- Findings of fact by the Adjudicator were properly open to him, and the decision was consistent with precedent regarding proportionality and human rights claims.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Serif v Greece (No. 38178/97) |
Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as a foundation of democratic society. |
Used to emphasize the importance of Article 9 rights in the proportionality analysis. |
| Otto-Preminger-Institute v Austria (1994) 19 EHRR 34 |
Positive obligation on the State to ensure peaceful enjoyment of Article 9 rights. |
Supported the Adjudicator’s consideration of State obligations under Article 9. |
| Omkrananda and Divine Light Zendrum v Switzerland (1981) 25 D 105 |
Consideration of refusal of extension of stay affecting religious institutions. |
Mentioned to rebut argument that the case was unique and to contextualize immigration policy considerations. |
| R (Farrakhan) v Secretary of State [2002] 3 WLR 481 |
Exceptional circumstances may override state’s right to control entry if Convention rights are at risk. |
Referenced by Appellant to support argument that expulsion could destroy religious exercise. |
| Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1599 |
Importance of communal aspects of religious worship. |
Relied upon by Appellant to emphasize communal worship under Article 9. |
| Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria 34 EHRR 55 |
Protection of autonomous existence of religious communities as essential for pluralism. |
Supported the Appellant’s submissions on the core protection of religious communities. |
| R v Immigration Officer ex parte Quaquah [2000] INLR 196 |
Exceptional entry circumstances require strong justification for removal. |
Referenced to argue for a nuanced approach to immigration control in unique cases. |
| Stedman v United Kingdom 23 EHRR CD168 |
Protection of religious belief and practice. |
Used to support arguments about interference with religious manifestation. |
| Kalac v Turkey [1999] 27 EHRR 522 |
Standards of review in human rights and immigration cases. |
Supported the Respondent’s position on the correctness of Adjudicator’s findings. |
| R (Samaroo) v Secretary of State [2001] Imm A.R. 324 |
Standard of review on proportionality in immigration cases. |
Referenced regarding appellate review but not decided upon in this appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded on the basis that the Adjudicator correctly identified that Article 9 was engaged, recognizing the Appellant’s right to manifest religion through communal worship with the Pastor. The key issue was proportionality: whether the limitation on religious freedom by removal was justified and necessary in a democratic society.
The Adjudicator acknowledged the significant spiritual impact on the congregation caused by the Pastor’s absence but concluded that it would not lead to the church’s extinction. The Court accepted the Adjudicator’s finding that the congregation’s strong bond with the Pastor would survive physical separation, and that church services, albeit of "secondary value," continued under the Deacon’s leadership. The Adjudicator also considered that the State’s interest in maintaining a sound immigration policy was a legitimate and important aim that outweighed the interference with religious freedom.
The Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Adjudicator erred by failing to consider the collapse of one of the Pastor’s churches, noting that this was addressed in the determination. The Adjudicator’s approach to balancing the competing interests was found to be logical, thorough, and appropriate, giving proper weight to the Human Rights Act and relevant case law. The Court found no misdirection or failure to take relevant matters into account.
The Court also noted that the availability of remedies in Lithuania for any potential breach of the Pastor’s rights under Article 9 meant that the interference was temporary and proportionate. The Court distinguished Article 9 from the absolute nature of Article 3 rights, which were not engaged here.
Overall, the Court found that the Adjudicator’s decision to affirm the removal was a proportionate interference with the Appellant’s rights, balanced against the public interest in immigration control.
Holding and Implications
The Court DISMISSED the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Adjudicator to uphold the Secretary of State’s removal directions to Lithuania.
The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant and similarly situated members of the congregation must leave the United Kingdom and return to Lithuania despite the separation from their Pastor. The decision confirms the State’s authority to enforce immigration controls even where such enforcement limits the communal manifestation of religion under Article 9, provided the limitation is proportionate and justified by legitimate aims. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of established principles of proportionality and human rights balancing in immigration cases.