AC-2024-LON-001762 - [2025] EWHC 2293 (Admin)

This Ground was argued on behalf of the Claimant by Ms Foot. As under Ground 4, although the heading in the Statement of Facts and Grounds and the Claimant’s skeleton argument alleges breach of Article 4 ECHR and the ECAT, the pleaded complaint was that there had been a failure on the part of the SSHD to consider her obligations under these provisions. This was said to amount to a breach of the United Kingdom’s protective duty under Article 4 ECHR to make enquiries as to the Claimant’s psychological recovery needs and whether they are better achieved in Portugal or the USA. Reliance was placed on R (TDT (Vietnam)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1395 at [17] ). It was also said to amount to a breach of the duty, under Article 32 ECAT, to investigate the grooming of the Claimant including by making enquires with the Portuguese authorities.

Ms Cumberland relied on section 70(11) of the 2003 Act. She also submitted that the duties of the United Kingdom under Article 4 ECHR and the ECAT do not form part of the SSHD’s decision making process under the 2003 Act and there is no basis on which these factors were required to be addressed by the SSHD at that stage of the proceedings. The Claimant was in any event protected by the conclusive grounds decision.