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

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0114

Parties

Appellant(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent(s)

Issue

What is the correct standard of proof for determining whether an individual can access state protection in their home state, for the purposes of establishing whether their deportation would be a breach of their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)?

Facts

The Respondent, CP, is a Jamaican citizen. He was born in 1984 and moved to the UK in 2001 whereupon he was granted leave to remain as a student until 2002. He overstayed and remained in the UK unlawfully before making a human rights claim in 2005 and a protection claim in 2006. Between 2008 and 2009 he was convicted of multiple burglary offences, attempted burglary, and unlawful wounding for having stabbed his former partner. For these crimes he was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. In 2010 the Appellant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, issued a notice of liability to deport CP and thereafter issued a notice that his presence in the UK constituted a danger to the community. CP sought asylum and, while that claim was being considered, committed further serious sexual offences against a young woman. He was convicted of two counts of rape in January 2013 and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. The Appellant issued a notice to deport in April 2018, and then a further notice that he was a danger to the community in June 2019. On 2 September 2019 the Appellant refused CP’s protection and human rights claims and maintained the decision to deport him. CP appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (“FTT”). He relied on the fact that his mother was an informer to the Jamaican police. Before she and CP arrived in the UK, she witnessed a murder and gave evidence at trial which led to the conviction and imprisonment of a gang leader. CP argued that if he returned to Jamaica, he would not receive protection from the authorities and therefore that deportation would breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR. The FTT rejected that argument. The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) reversed the FTT’s decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the UT. The Secretary of State for the Home Department now appeals to the Supreme Court.