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

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0078

Parties

Appellant(s)

PG

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in allowing the SSHD’s appeal and remitting the case back to the Upper Tribunal?

Facts

The Appellant is a Sri Lankan national born in Jaffna in 1974. He entered the UK in 2008 on a student visa which he overstayed. In 2012, he was convicted of five counts of sexual activity with a child and one count of attempted rape. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) informed him that he was liable to be deported as a foreign criminal. He sought asylum in the UK on the ground that as a gay man his life would be at risk if he were to be deported to Sri Lanka. In 2013, the SSHD refused the Appellant’s asylum claim because his criminal convictions gave rise to a presumption that he was a danger to the community and he had failed to rebut that presumption. However, the SSHD accepted that he would have been entitled to asylum had it not been for the presumption, so he was granted limited leave to remain until 11 April 2014. When his leave expired, he applied for further leave to remain on the grounds of both his original asylum claim and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2017, the SSHD rejected the application and issued a deportation order. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) allowed the Appellant’s appeal against that decision on the ground that it was unsafe for him to return to Sri Lanka. The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the SSHD’s appeal against the FTT decision because the judge did not give sufficient reasons for departing from the country guidance case for Sri Lanka. Upon re-hearing the case in the UT, a different judge allowed the Appellant’s appeal on the basis that deportation would breach his right under Article 3 ECHR not to be subjected to degrading treatment by reason of his sexuality. The Court of Appeal allowed the SSHD’s appeal and remitted the case to the UT for a further hearing. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

28 April 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top