HK (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

For Article 3 purposes, allegedly degrading detention conditions must be assessed in context and against the quality of the evidence. Lack of in-cell toilets and the use of leashes or handcuffs may be degrading without independently crossing the Article 3 threshold. Evidence of violence by detention officers may be troubling and come close to that threshold, but generalised and vague material may remain insufficient to show that certification of the claim as manifestly unfounded was unlawful. A specific earlier denial of torture may be relied upon when assessing a later account and claimed need for psychiatric care.

HK (Sudan) challenged the Secretary of State’s decision that he should be removed to Hungary and that his claim that removal would breach Article 3 of the Convention was manifestly unfounded. Judge Thornton refused permission for judicial review.

On renewal, the applicant relied on four alleged risks in Hungary: violence by detention officers, the use of leashes and handcuffs during transfers, restricted access to toilets, and limited psychiatric care for claimed PTSD. The central issue was whether the evidence showed that the Secretary of State was not entitled to certify the Article 3 claim.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. The alleged conditions had to be considered together with the evidence concerning their nature, frequency and particularity. A condition may be degrading without itself reaching the Article 3 threshold.
2. The lack of toilets within detention rooms or cells was capable of being degrading. However, standing alone, it did not establish a sufficient risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (para. [5]).
3. The use of leashes and handcuffs during transfers was also degrading, but the evidence did not show a sufficient Article 3 risk arising from that practice alone (para. [6]).
4. As to psychiatric care, the Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the applicant’s specific earlier denial that he had suffered torture. The explanation that PTSD sufferers may be reluctant to disclose their experiences did not require the earlier answer to be rejected (para. [4]).
5. The allegation of violence was the most serious concern. Evidence showed that individual officers could be violent, although there was also evidence that most detention officers acted humanely. The earlier consideration of violence in Mohammed and Mohammadi had not resulted in a finding of Article 3 risk, although that assessment had assumed that conditions would improve.
6. The latest Hungarian Helsinki Committee material was troubling but generalised and vague. It could be supported by material already in the public domain and previously considered. It was therefore insufficient to establish that the Secretary of State was not entitled to certify the claim. More specific evidence might have justified permission, but the material before the court did not.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on a renewed application, Sir Stanley Burnton refused permission to appeal.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Judge Thornton refused permission for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s removal and certification decision.