Refusal of Section 4(2) support – argued that neither Regulation 3(2) nor destitution were satisfied. Destitution proven at hearing. Regulation 3(2)(e) argued on the basis of the appellant’s mental health and suicide risk. AW v LB Croydon and AD & Y v LB Hackney; J v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 629; Y (Sri Lanka) and Z (Sri Lanka) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 362 all considered.
An appellant may hold a genuine fear, albeit without an objective foundation, such as to create a risk of suicide sufficient to satisfy Article 3. However, in the absence of an objective foundation for the fear, some independent basis for it must be established if weight is to be given to it (Y and Z). No Regulation 3(2)(e) findings made since no such evidence adduced.
Risk of suicide does not create an automatic entitlement under the Human Rights Act to be supported in the UK when the appellant has no right to remain. Destitution might compromise the appellant’s mental health, but he was capable of resolving any potential breach of his Convention Rights by taking steps to leave the UK, availing himself of the support of mental health services if necessary. Appeal dismissed.
Read the full decision in