In the matter of an Application by JR247 for Judicial Review (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0027

Parties

Appellant(s)

JR247

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Did delay in determining the appellant’s asylum decision amount to a breach of her rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?

Facts

JR247 was born in Nigeria. She fled the county to avoid female genital mutilation. In November 2019, she entered the UK via Manchester to London, where she became a victim of sexual exploitation/forced sex work. On 27 February 2020, JR247 escaped the house in which she was held and travelled to Belfast. On 5 March 2020 she claimed asylum. On 4 November 2022, JR247 issued judicial review proceedings challenging the failure by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) at that time to have made a decision regarding her asylum claim. On 7 November 2022, Colton J granted leave to apply for judicial review. The appellant’s asylum decision was taken on 20 January 2023. The SSHD acceded to the appellant’s application for asylum and, on 24 January 2023, her biometric residence permit was issued. The SSHD subsequently argued that the application for judicial review was now academic and should be dismissed. JR247 maintained that she was entitled to seek a declaration and damages on the ground that the historic delay violated her rights under article 8 of the ECHR as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”). Having considered written and oral submissions on 27 January 2023, Colton J directed that the application should proceed to a full substantive hearing. The issue was whether the delay in determining the appellant’s asylum claim had given rise to a breach of article 8 ECHR and, if so, whether an award of damages was necessary to afford just satisfaction. Colton J rejected that there had been such a breach and dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal JR247’s the appeal. McCloskey LJ (Horner LJ and McAlinden J agreeing) held that the claim would have been dismissed as academic due to the asylum decision having been granted, but for a modest adjustment to Colton J’s reasoning. JR247 appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

5 March 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top