The Supreme Court has quashed a decision refusing to revoke a deportation order against an Algerian national, finding that the Minister’s reasons did not clearly explain why his return would not expose him to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
In a judgment delivered by O’Donnell J. on 27 July 2017, the Court allowed the appeal in part. It did not rule that the man could not be deported, or decide for itself whether he faced a real risk in Algeria. Instead, it sent the revocation question back to the Minister for a fresh decision based on up-to-date information and focused submissions.
The man, identified in the judgment as Y.Y. under an anonymity order, had challenged both a 2016 deportation decision under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999 and a later refusal under section 3(11) to revoke that order. The High Court had dismissed his challenge to both decisions.
The Supreme Court held that the Minister did not have to notify him in advance of mainstream, publicly available country information of the same general kind as material already used in the case. It did not decide whether the section 3(11) process would satisfy any such notification duty, because it found no duty arose on these facts.
The central issue was the Minister’s reasoning on the risk of prohibited treatment. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had previously found substantial grounds for believing Y.Y. faced a personal, present and foreseeable risk of serious harm in Algeria, while excluding him from subsidiary protection because of his offending. The Supreme Court said that finding was significant and would normally require a reasoned explanation if the Minister reached a different conclusion.
The Court noted that the Minister relied on more recent country information and on Y.Y.’s brother living openly in Algeria and reportedly being “okay”. But the revocation decision also relied on general statements about the applicable legal test and treated earlier material and foreign court decisions as information that could have been submitted sooner. The Court said it was not sufficiently clear how those points supported the conclusion that there was no real risk to Y.Y. in particular.
The order quashes only the 6 December 2016 refusal to revoke. The 15 September 2016 deportation order remains in place for now. The Minister must reconsider the revocation request, addressing whether this applicant faces a real risk on substantial grounds of treatment contrary to Article 3. The Court said the submissions should identify the treatment feared and connect the evidence to Y.Y.’s circumstances and current conditions in Algeria.
The case was remitted to the High Court list to manage any further challenge. The Court extended the stay on deportation subject to the conditions and time limits set out in its order.