[2023] UKUT 239 (AAC)

As the treatment of which the Applicant complains does not fall within any of the specific grounds listed in Article 14, she must demonstrate she enjoys some “other status”.

The applicant’s arguments regarding “other status” before the FtT were twofold. First as a person with an unspent conviction or, second, as a victim of CSA

The FtT accepted being a person with unspent conviction(s) was an “other status” for the purposes of Article 14, as this was accepted in the context of victims of trafficking having unspent convictions by the Supreme Court in A&B at [46] and [67] and was not disputed by the parties.

CICA had disputed being a victim of CSA constituted “other status “as it was not a personal characteristic, relying on “what had been done to a person rather than what a person was”. However the FtT noted the “more generous “ approach to status referred to by the Supreme Court in A&B notably in the decision of the ECtHR in Clift v United Kingdom (Application No 7205/07, 13 July 2010, para 55) and were not persuaded by CICA’s argument that the phrase used by Lord Lloyd- Jones in A&B “being a victim of trafficking ….is plainly a personal identifiable characteristic to which many important legal consequences attach”[46] precluded a victim of CSA having “other status”. The FtT did not accept it was a necessary condition of having an other status that important legal consequences must flow from being a victim of that particular type of crime (paragraph 57). The FtT found being a victim of CSA was an “other status” for the purposes of Article 14. I consider the view taken by the FtT on this point is correct.