[2025] UKUT 00092 (IAC)

There is a single ground for review. The applicant contends that the 12 December decision, and the decision to maintain it dated 30 January 2023 taken in the course of pre-action correspondence, featured errors of domestic public law, thereby rendering it “not in accordance with the law” for the purposes of Article 8(2) ECHR. The applicant seeks damages as just satisfaction for the breaches of his Convention rights.

The domestic public law errors that Mr Buttler KC contends infected the 12 December decision are said to be a failure properly to follow and apply Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of ECAT. Article 14 sits within Chapter III of the Convention (“Measures to protect and promote the rights of victims, guaranteeing gender equality”). Paragraph (1) provides:

“Article 14 – Residence permit

1.

Each Party shall issue a renewable residence permit to victims, in one or other of the two following situations or in both:

a.

the competent authority considers that their stay is necessary owing to their personal situation;

b.

the competent authority considers that their stay is necessary for the purpose of their co-operation with the competent authorities in investigation or criminal proceedings.”