![CA-2025-002338 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1264](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
CTK’s challenge to his removal
CTK’s challenge to his removal
CTK’s solicitors issued an urgent application challenging his removal to France and seeking an interim injunction to prevent it. CTK challenged decision 1, decision 2 and decision 3. He challenged them on nine grounds:
The Secretary of State had not made a human rights decision.
Decision 3 breached the principle of non-refoulement.
Decision 2 was unlawful.
The Secretary of State’s criteria for choosing CTK for removal were discriminatory, unjustified, and contrary to Articles 3, 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”).
Those criteria were “unjustified at common law”.
CTK had been chosen for removal arbitrarily or “pursuant to an undisclosed policy”.
The Secretary of State had failed to exercise her discretion in accordance with policy guidance.
The Secretary of State had failed to get assurances.
CTK had been detained unlawfully.
- Heading
- Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing
- The facts
- The Competent Authority’s decision
- CTK’s challenge to his removal
- The hearing and the judgment
- The grounds of appeal
- The legal background
- The relevant domestic provisions about trafficking
- The two treaties
- Introduction to our consideration of the grounds of appeal
- Discussion
- The grounds of appeal
- Ground 2
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Is there another compelling reason for giving permission to appeal?
- Conclusions