Skip Navigation

International Journal of Refugee Law 2005 17(3):593-629; doi:10.1093/ijrl/eei022
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Case Law

N v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

[2005] UKHL 31

Date: 05/05/2005

N (FC): Appellant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Respondents


   LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD
 
My Lords,

1. This appeal raises a question of profound importance about the human rights obligations of the United Kingdom in respect of the expulsion of people with HIV/AIDS. The appellant, a woman 30 years of age, comes from Uganda. She was born there in December 1974. She came to London on a flight from Entebbe in March 1998. She was refused leave to enter this country. Her claim for asylum was rejected. The Secretary of State proposes to expel her. But there is a tragic complication: she suffers from advanced HIV/AIDS (‘full blown AIDS’, in the old terminology).

2. When the appellant arrived here she was very poorly. Within hours she was admitted to Guy's Hospital. She was diagnosed as HIV positive, with an AIDS defining illness. In August 1998 she developed . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The proceedings
Article 3
The Strasbourg jurisprudence
Article 3 and medical care for would-be immigrants

   LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD
 
D v. United Kingdom
The Strasbourg jurisprudence since D's case
The facts in this case
Conclusion

   LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE
 

   BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND
 

   LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?