Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex Parte Shah - Somewhere to Run to - Gender Persecution and Refugee Status
![handle is hein.journals/chilflq11 and id is 327 raw text is: 321
Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department;
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another
ex parte Shah
Somewhere to run to -
gender persecution and refugee status
Sinead Conneely, BA, LLB, LLM (Cantab), PhD student, Trinity College Dublin'
FACTS AND PROGRESSION OF THE CASES
On 25 March 1999 the House of Lords delivered judgment on the joint appeals of Islam v
Secretary of State for the Home Department and R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte
Shah,2 in what must be a great victory of common sense and humanity over state self-interest.
The House of Lords accepted that the two women who came before it, victims of domestic
abuse living in fear of both spousal and state violence, were entitled to remain in the UK. The
women were entitled to refugee status under the terms of the United Nations Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (Geneva Convention) and as a result it would be
contrary to the obligations of the UK under the Convention to require them to return to their
home state.
The Islam case concerned a woman teacher from the state of Pakistan, who was married to a
violent and abusive man. After she intervened in a politically motivated schoolyard fight, she
was accused of adultery. After suffering two further, serious assaults at the hands of her
husband, she fled to the UK and sought asylum under the Geneva Convention. Her claim was
rejected by a special adjudicator for failure to prove that she had been persecuted on account of
an actual or imputed political opinion, or that she was a member of a particular social group.
Article IA of the Geneva Convention stipulates that the term 'refugee' shall apply to any
person who:
'(2) ... owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country.'3
Her appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was rejected and she proceeded with her case
to the Court of Appeal.
The Shah case similarly concerned a married woman living in Pakistan who suffered her
husband's abuse. Shortly after escaping to the UK she gave birth to a child and argued that if
she were forced to return, her husband would accuse her of adultery. Her case was also denied
by the special adjudicator on grounds of a failure to demonstrate membership of a particular
social group and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal refused her leave to appeal that decision.
However, a successful judicial review of that decision caused the Secretary of State for the
Home Department to instigate an action in the Court of Appeal.
I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to Professor William Binchy for his thought provoking comments on a
draft of this article. The mistakes, omissions and the opinions are my own.
2 [1999]2 WLR 1015.
See also s 8(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 which provides that a person who has limited
leave to enter the UK may appeal to a special adjudicator against a refusal to vary leave on the grounds that it
would be contrary to the UK's obligations under the Convention for him to be required to leave the UK after the
time limited by the leave.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/chilflq11&div=35&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most