Pyotr Lamanovs & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Home Department

Removal of a person from the United Kingdom will breach Article 3 only where the anticipated treatment reaches the required minimum level of severity. The assessment is fact-sensitive and includes the nature, context, method and duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects, and the person’s health.

Medical vulnerability is relevant but does not itself establish an Article 3 breach. Where removal is accompanied by appropriate medical safeguards, including pre-removal assessment, medical escort and handover to informed authorities, the proposed treatment may remain below the Article 3 threshold.

The claimants sought judicial review after the Secretary of State directed Pyotr Lamanovs’ removal to France following the refusal of the family’s asylum applications. Mr Lamanovs suffered from epilepsy and depression, and his solicitors alleged that removal would constitute inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Administrative Court proceedings arose from an injunction and permission to seek judicial review granted by Lord Justice Schiemann on the papers. The Secretary of State applied to set both aside. The central issue was whether the proposed removal, assessed in light of the medical evidence and the Secretary of State’s undertakings, would breach Articles 3 or 8.

1. The applications were granted. The injunction restraining removal and the permission to apply for judicial review were set aside. The removal process could proceed. There was no order for costs.
2. Article 3 involves a minimum level of severity. That threshold is relative and must be assessed by reference to all the circumstances, including the nature and context of the treatment, its manner and method, its duration, its physical or mental effects, and the applicant’s age and state of health. The suffering or humiliation must exceed the unavoidable element associated with legitimate treatment.
3. The court assessed the proposed removal in light of the medical evidence most favourable to the applicant and the Secretary of State’s undertakings. Those undertakings required a medical examination before removal, a medical escort during the journey, and handover to the appropriate French immigration authorities after they had been informed of the applicant’s condition.
4. Although the applicant’s epilepsy was poorly controlled and removal was unfortunate and stressful, the journey to France would take less than an hour, would occur under medical supervision, and would be made to authorities alerted to his condition. Epilepsy was not a new or unfamiliar condition for the applicant or his family. The proposed treatment therefore did not attain the severity required for an Article 3 breach.
5. The court was not addressed on the interrelation between the Human Rights Act 1998 provisions referred to in the judgment and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 appeal provisions, and expressed no view on that issue. The Article 8 point was not substantively argued; removal with the applicant’s family meant that no breach was established.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Set aside the injunction and permission to apply for judicial review granted below. Removal could proceed.
• Administrative Court: The judgment refers to permission and an injunction granted by Lord Justice Schiemann on the papers. No separate citation or final decision of the lower court is stated.