NA (Sudan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Dublin return to another European state breaches article 3 only where substantial grounds establish a real risk of treatment attaining the minimum severity of inhuman or degrading treatment. The significant evidential presumption that the receiving state will comply with its Convention and EU obligations is rebuttable, but a systemic deficiency is evidence of risk rather than a legal precondition.

Tarakhel requires assurances of accommodation adapted to children and preservation of the family unit for families with minor children. It does not create a general requirement for individual accommodation assurances for all adults with particular vulnerabilities. The inquiry remains individual and practical.

NA, a Sudanese national with refugee status in Italy, and MR, an Iranian national who had not claimed asylum there, challenged certificates that their article 3 claims against return to Italy were clearly unfounded. NA relied on her history of homelessness and sexual violence in Italy, PTSD, depression and suicide risk. MR relied on serious mental-health difficulties.

Lewis J dismissed NA’s judicial-review claim in proceedings also involving two other claimants: [2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin). Whipple J dismissed MR’s claim, following that decision: [2015] EWHC 3645. The common issue was whether vulnerable Dublin returnees faced a real risk of article 3 treatment because suitable accommodation, support and healthcare would not be available in Italy.

1. Appeals dismissed. The certification question was whether the article 3 claims could succeed on any legitimate view. It was therefore necessary to decide whether there was a realistic prospect that return to Italy would expose either appellant to inhuman or degrading treatment.

2. The governing test was whether substantial grounds showed a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3. The minimum severity assessment is relative and fact-sensitive. A breach of the applicable EU reception or qualification standards does not, without more, establish an article 3 breach.

3. The court began with the significant evidential presumption that Italy would comply with its Convention obligations. That presumption could be displaced by practical evidence. A systemic deficiency was not a legal precondition, but evidence of widespread systemic failings might establish the requisite real risk.

4. Tarakhel did not require individual assurances for every adult who was particularly vulnerable through trauma or mental ill-health. Its conclusion concerned families with minor children, whose age-specific needs and the need to keep the family together were central. Later Strasbourg decisions concerning adults with PTSD and suicide risk confirmed that no wider rule had been established.

5. The evidence did not show a real risk that NA, as a pre-notified vulnerable beneficiary of international protection, would be denied assistance at arrival or suitable accommodation and support. The substantial expansion of the SPRAR system, together with the arrangements for notification and assessment, meant that temporary imperfections or delays did not meet the article 3 threshold. The same conclusion applied to MR, a vulnerable asylum-seeker who would be referred to airport support services and could receive appropriate accommodation.

6. Appropriate medical and psychiatric treatment was available in Italy. NA’s refusal to consent to disclosure of her medical records did not establish an article 3 breach, since the Italian authorities could still be notified of her vulnerability, diagnosis and suicide risk. The exceptional circumstances in Y and Z (Sri Lanka) were materially different.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed NA’s and MR’s appeals: [2016] EWCA Civ 1060 .

• High Court, Administrative Court (Lewis J): dismissed NA’s judicial-review claim, together with the related MS and SG claims: [2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin) .

• High Court, Administrative Court (Whipple J): dismissed MR’s judicial-review claim, following Lewis J’s decision: [2015] EWHC 3645.