Foreign children in the UK to receive life-saving treatment

[askmeplz82]

In a landmark judgment handed down this morning, allowing the appeal in R (SQ) v SSHD, the Court of Appeal (Maurice-Kay, Lewison and Underhill LJJ) held that children who require life-saving medical treatment are more likely to be entitled to remain in the UK to receive it under Article 3 ECHR because they are more likely to satisfy the "exceptional circumstances" test in N v UK, than adults.


http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/im ... %20oct.pdf

[Wanderer]

In a landmark judgment handed down this morning, allowing the appeal in R (SQ) v SSHD, the Court of Appeal (Maurice-Kay, Lewison and Underhill LJJ) held that children who require life-saving medical treatment are more likely to be entitled to remain in the UK to receive it under Article 3 ECHR because they are more likely to satisfy the "exceptional circumstances" test in N v UK, than adults.


http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/im ... %20oct.pdf

This is stupid, the sooner the UK drops the Human Rights Act and replaces with something based on reality the better.

[Obie]

This was a particularly dreadful case involving a very young child whose prospect of leading a normal life to adolescent is almost non- existent if seny back. This child was in court, and had you seen how ill he was , you would not be saying this.
The judge made the right decision.

Wanderer it has been years since I last saw you on this forum. You will forgive me for having wrongly thought your views might have softened over the years.

[Amber]

I don't know how a person could ever refuse such an applicant, heartless the child had to go through the added stress of an appeal.

[Obie]

He is a young boy of about 14-15, he has the structure of a 7 years old boy. He was truely poorly, and having heard the evidence, snd seen the child, it is difficult to see how the court in any civilised western country coild have ruled otherwise.

Nevertheless he is not out the woods yet. He has to go back to the tribunal to decide his case, and they may well form the view that his removal is proportionate.

He has a long way indeed, but the decision offers some form of life line.

[Amber]

Indeed, especially with the tag of 'health tourism' which the government is brandishing. I believe his medical evidence could, and hopefully will be, better presented.

[Obie]

Yes the health tourism was never used against him. It was Maurice kay LJ that first brought it up. I felt it was unfair. It was extraordinary to see a Judge doing the Secretary ofStates job. But in the end,; tthe appeal could only go one way, as the first tier tribunal mafe a complete mess of it, and the upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal. Therefore the case had to get to the Coury of Appeal via Cart Judicial Review route, after the high court refused permission.

[Amber]

Yes a quick appeal in such cases is needed with a very tight appeal time limit. Hopefully things work out for the child.