R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
UK courts should keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less.
Facts
Mr Ullah, a Pakistani national, and another asylum seeker were refused asylum. They argued that removing them to their home countries would breach their right to freedom of religion under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because they would be prevented from practising their religion there, even though the treatment they feared did not reach the level of torture or inhuman treatment under article 3.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that article 9 could in principle be engaged by removal to another country, but only where there was a real risk of a flagrant violation of the right, such as a complete denial or nullification of it in the receiving country, which was not established here. Lord Bingham said that, under section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires the courts to take into account Strasbourg case law, the UK courts should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in the absence of special circumstances. The duty of national courts is to keep pace with the Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves over time: no more, but certainly no less. This became known as the mirror principle.
Related cases on Human Rights Act 1998
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68
- Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 AC 546
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
- Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
- Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104
- R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] UKSC 28
- R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] 1 AC 153
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
