SC (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 15 (15 June 2022) SC (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 15 (15 June 2022)
Citation: SC (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 15 (15 June 2022)
Subjects invoked: 76 'Immigration'. 108. 'Degrading conditions'.
Rule of thumb:If an immigrant can argue that in the country the UK immigration authorities are seeking to deport them to, they would only be safe in the rural areas and not the cities/urban areas, is this a successful defence the immigrant can make to stop themselves from being deported? Yes. This is a successful defence. If a person is being deported by UK immigration authorities back to their country of origin and they can argue that their life and limb would be at risk in city or urban areas, this is a successful defence to the deportation order against them. (SC) Sierra-Charlie was able to stop his deportation to rural Jamaica because criminal convictions he had meant that he would be a target for attack in the cities and urban areas.
Background facts:
This case was in the field of immigration and the human not to be subject to inhumane or degrading conditions.
The material facts of this case were that the pursuer, SC, Sierra Charlie, was being deported from the UK back to Jamaica. However, Sierra-Mike had previous criminal convictions which were not socially tolerated in urban Jamaica. Sierra Charlie argued that due to previous convictions he had, his life and limb would be in danger in the cities of Jamaica, and he therefore could not be deported there as his right not to be subject to inhumane or degrading conditions would be violated.
The UK immigration authorities argued that in rural Jamaica Sierra Charlie would be safe. The immigration authorities therefore sought to find Sierra Charlie suitable accommodation in rural Jamaica and then deport him. They argued that this was a fair balance that did not violate Sierra-Charlie’s right not to be subject to inhumane or degrading conditions.
Judgment:
The Court upheld Sierra Charlie’s arguments that he could not be deported to Jamaica. The Court affirmed that where a plaintiff can show that they would be in danger in the cities of a country, and they have to hide away in the rural parts of the country after being deported there, then it would be a breach of the human right not to be subject to inhumane and degrading conditions to deport them to this country.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘103. SC cannot “reasonably be expected to stay” in the rural areas of Jamaica which in turn means that the SSHD’s deportation decision in relation to SC is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as being incompatible with SC’s article 3 ECHR rights and not in accordance with paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules. The overall outcome is that SC succeeds on the article 3 ECHR ground and on the ground that the deportation decision was not in accordance with paragraph 339O of the Immigration Rules’, Lord Stephens
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.