Secretary of State for the Home Department v Y

An appellate court may decline to determine an appeal that has become academic where the respondent has subsequently obtained the relief sought. A claimed precedent value will not ordinarily justify hearing the appeal where the case presents no continuing damages issue and the first-instance decision has limited practical precedential significance. Unresolved Convention issues may be left for determination in a later case with appropriate facts.

Y, a young Afghan national suffering severe mental and psychological problems, challenged the refusal to grant him indefinite leave to remain, relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The Administrative Court, presided over by HHJ Thornton QC, found for him under both Articles on 14 June 2013. The Secretary of State appealed. Before the appeal was heard, a later application resulted in a grant of indefinite leave to remain. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should nevertheless determine the appeal because of the alleged precedent value of the Administrative Court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeal declined to proceed to hear the appeal.

1. Y had obtained, through a later application, the indefinite leave to remain sought in the judicial review proceedings. There was no pleaded or intended underlying claim for damages requiring a final determination under the Human Rights Act.
2. The alleged precedent value of the Administrative Court’s judgment did not justify hearing an otherwise academic appeal. The judgment was expressly based on exceptional and unusual factual findings, which substantially limited its practical precedent value.
3. The judgment was not binding authority in the Administrative Court. Further, challenges of this kind ordinarily proceed by judicial review rather than statutory appeal to tribunals, so the concern that the judgment would control numerous tribunal decisions did not arise.
4. The court agreed that the Article 3 grounds were clearly arguable, particularly concerning the ambit of treatment and the required level of severity, but expressed no final view on those issues. The Secretary of State remained free to argue in a later case, preferably on less exceptional facts, that the Deputy Judge’s reasoning was wrong.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): declined to hear the Secretary of State’s appeal after Y obtained indefinite leave to remain through a subsequent application.
2. Administrative Court: HHJ Thornton QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge, allowed Y’s judicial review claim on 14 June 2013 under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.