Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v OSB (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0082

Parties

Appellant(s)

OSB

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Was the Court of Appeal entitled to overturn the Upper Tribunal’s decision, in circumstances where fresh arguments were made to the Court of Appeal which had not been raised in the Upper Tribunal?

Facts

The appellant is a Nigerian citizen who was born in January 1986. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 2000 on a forged passport. He made an application for indefinite leave to remain in 2003. The respondent Secretary of State refused that application in 2007. He appealed against that decision, and his appeal was dismissed. He continued to remain in the UK unlawfully. In September 2009, he was convicted of three counts of attempted rape and of kidnapping with the intention to commit a sexual offence. The three incidents were all violent and serious, and the sentencing judge indicated that they were of such gravity that the appellant would ordinarily have been considered for a life sentence. However, the appellant had a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and consequently he was instead sentenced to an indefinite hospital order under section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. In June 2015, the Secretary of State issued OSB with a notice of liability to deportation. OSB responded by making a human rights claim, essentially arguing that deportation to Nigeria would breach his rights to private and family life and not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment under Articles 8 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The crux of his argument under Article 3 was that if he were to be returned to Nigeria, there would be a real risk that he would not take his medication, would relapse, would commit further offences, and then would be detained there in circumstances which would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. The Secretary of State refused his human rights claim, and in November 2015 made a decision to deport him from the UK. He appealed against that decision, but his appeal was dismissed. A deportation order was signed in February 2017. OSB then made a series of unsuccessful applications, submissions and claims seeking revocation of the deportation order on protection and human rights grounds. In September 2021, the Secretary of State made a fresh decision to deport him. OSB appealed against that decision. The First-tier Tribunal (“F-TT”) initially dismissed his appeal, but then the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) then allowed OSB’s appeal against the F-TT decision and remitted his case back to the F-TT. In June 2024, his appeal was therefore reheard by the F-TT. The F-TT concluded that deporting him to Nigeria would be incompatible with his right under Article 3 ECHR not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment: OSB’s appeal was therefore allowed. The Secretary of State appealed to the UT, on the ground that the F-TT had erred in law by “failing to give reasons or any adequate reasons for findings on material matters.” The UT dismissed her appeal. The Secretary of State then appealed to the Court of Appeal (“CA”), which allowed her appeal and indicated that the deportation order should now be put into effect. The Secretary of State’s ground of appeal to the CA was that the UT erred in law in upholding the F-TT decision because “the First-tier Tribunal, contrary to the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion, adopted a flawed approach to Article 3 and arrived at an inadequately reasoned and impermissibly speculative decision.” OSB now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

17 June 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top