References:  QB 1440,  EWCA Civ 540, Times 26-May-2004,  3 WLR 561
Coram: Laws, Jacob, Carnwath LJJ
Ratio: The appellant brought in policies which denied to asylum claimants who had failed to declare their status immediately upon entry, any shelter or support or the right to work. They were to be left to starve on the streets if they so wished. He appealed a finding that his behaviour amounted to the equivalent of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
Held: The effect of the rules was that claimants would generally be humiliated and their lives put at risk. There was no evidence of any available alternative system of charitable support, and indeed the charities said they would be quite unable to cope. The test was not whether any individual would be or had been degraded, but whether a substantial proportion of claimants would suffer those consequences. The appellant had no policy save for heavily pregnant women. The system was calculated to inflict such intense physical or mental suffering or humiliation as to break moral or physical resistance.
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 3, Immigration and Asylum Support Act 1999 95, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 55(5)
This case cites:
- Appeal from – Regina (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD (Times 09-Feb-04, Bailii,  EWHC 219 (Admin))
The claimant had sought asylum on the day after arrival, and had therefore been refused any assistance beyond the provision of a list of charities who might assist. His lawyers were unable to secure either shelter or maintenance, and he had been . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Regina (Gazer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA (Times 23-Dec-04)
The applicant, an asylum seeker had been placed in the dispersal programme. He complained that where he was sent he would be likely to be subject to harm from the local population. He said this should have been considered by the respondent. He had . .
- Appeal from – Adam, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Limbuela v Same; Tesema v Same HL (Bailii,  UKHL 66, Times 04-Nov-05, House of Lords,  3 WLR 1014,  1 All ER 951,  1 AC 396)
The applicants had each entered the UK with a view to seeking asylum, but having failed to seek asylum immediately, they had been refused any assistance, were not allowed to work and so had been left destitute. Each had claimed asylum on the day . .