Saadi v Italy
The Grand Chamber reaffirmed that the risk of ill treatment on deportation cannot be weighed against the danger the person poses to the community, rejecting the United Kingdom's argument for a balancing test.
Facts
Mr Saadi, a Tunisian national, was convicted in Italy of offences connected with terrorism, and the Italian authorities ordered his deportation to Tunisia, where he had been convicted in his absence of terrorist offences. He claimed that he would face a real risk of torture in Tunisia. The United Kingdom intervened, arguing that the approach in Chahal v United Kingdom should be modified, so that the risk to the individual could be balanced against the danger he posed, or a higher standard of proof required in national security cases.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that deportation would breach article 3, and rejected the United Kingdom's arguments. The court said that the protection against ill treatment in article 3 is absolute, that the concepts of risk and dangerousness do not lend themselves to a balancing test, and that it was not possible to require a higher standard of proof where the person was considered to represent a serious danger to the community. Diplomatic assurances given by the Tunisian authorities were not sufficient to remove the risk, given the reliable reports of torture in Tunisia.
Related cases on prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment (article 3)
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221
- A v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR 611
- AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, [2021] AC 633
- Chahal v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 413
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD [2018] UKSC 11, [2019] AC 196
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- Ireland v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 25
- R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
Studying human rights 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.
