Share it

On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 90

 

This appeal considered whether the appellant’s entry into the UK as an asylum seeker and the decision to prosecute her for entering with false travel documentation engaged ECHR, art 8. It also considered what the appropriate threshold is for engaging art 8, and whether the decision to prosecute was disproportionate. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Court held that ECHR, art 8 rights are broad but do not encompass everything done by a public authority that has the consequence of impacting someone’s private life in a more than minimal way. There was no authority to suggest that the institution of criminal proceedings, for a matter which is the subject of criminal law and for which there is sufficient evidence, may be open to a challenge on ECHR, art 8 grounds. The Court held that the decision to prosecute did not amount to a breach of the ECHR, art 8 where it was accepted that there was an evidential basis for prosecution at the time of the decision. Likewise, it was submitted that it did not matter that prosecution is not obligatory in the UK, and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute is different to whether a prosecution would breach an individual’s ECHR, art 8 rights. A decision to prosecute does not itself involve a lack of respect for the autonomy of the defendant but rather places the question of their guilt before the court.

For judgment, please download: [2017] UKSC 30
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (19 Jul 2016 morning session) (19 Jul 2016 afternoon session)