Latest news with #UpperTierTribunal
Daily Mail
30-04-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Ghanaian asylum seeker wins right to remain in UK because he is too traumatised by getting Covid to return to his home country
A Ghanian asylum seeker has won a human rights claim to remain in the UK after arguing he is too traumatised by getting Covid to return to his home country. Winfred Kwabla Dogbey was diagnosed with PTSD after he was hospitalised with the virus in 2020, where he suffered an extreme version of the illness with multiple organ failure. The 52-year-old told a tribunal that he had been experiencing 'post Covid-19 syndrome' and was part of a rehabilitation programme for those impacted by the outbreak. The panel heard that this type of treatment in the West African country was 'practically non-existent' and that psychiatric care offered is 'insufficient'. After hearing of how Mr Dogbey would likely experience a 'rapid and severe decline in his mental health' if he were to return to Ghana, he has won a claim to stay in the UK. The Upper Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard Mr Dogbey came to the UK in April 2013 on a visa. He claimed asylum in June 2016 and after this was refused, there was a 'protracted history of lodging further submissions'. The panel heard that the asylum seeker was hospitalised and required critical care after contracting Covid-19 in May 2020. Mr Dogbey had suffered a 'very severe' episode of Covid-related pneumonia, with associated multiple organ failure. The tribunal referred to a letter from his GP, which detailed how he was experiencing 'post Covid-19 syndrome'. And, it was heard that he had been diagnosed with moderately severe PTSD and major depressive disorder [MDD]. Mr Dogbey argued that there would be 'very significant obstacles' to his integration in Ghana, if he were to be returned. This was after the Home Office ultimately rejected his asylum claim in December 2023. The judge heard Mr Dogbey is taking part in a 'Covid-19 Rehabilitation Programme' and is receiving physiotherapy appointments. He has appointments arranged for CT and Ultrasound scans, and has been referred to the Neurology department at All Bucks Hospital in Buckinghamshire. The panel, made up of Upper Tribunal Judge Khan and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Gill, said they were 'satisfied' that Mr Dogbey's health conditions 'persist' and agreed that he was a 'seriously ill person'. Lawyers representing the Home Office argued that both treatment and medical care is available to Mr Dogbey in Ghana. They said there are psychiatric hospitals in the West African country. But the panel noted they 'conceded' to mention that the psychiatric care offered in Ghana has been deemed 'insufficient'. Mr Dogbey's lawyers referred to a report which stated he would be 'highly unlikely' to receive professional mental and physical health services in Ghana. The tribunal heard that only 0.6 percent of Ghanaians with a major depressive disorder are able to receive treatment. It was said that even those patients who are able to access mental health treatment received 'poor quality of care'. The judgement said: 'Ghanaians with severe mental health illnesses are referred to psychiatric hospitals and prayer camps. 'They experience 'human rights abuses in both' where they suffer further trauma.' The lawyers said that the 'Ghanaian crisis of mental health care and the mistreatment of the mentally ill' has received 'international attention'. They referred to evidence which stated that in hospitals patients are 'forcibly coerced, including being sedated and beaten, into taking the prescribed mental health medication, and are given electroconvulsive therapy without use of anaesthesia'. The judgement added: 'Furthermore, post Covid treatment in Ghana is 'practically non-existent'.' It was heard that there is 'only one private psychologist trained in trauma focused therapy' in Ghana. And, the country's healthcare system does not cover psychiatric or psychological counselling services, meaning that those practising are 'not regulated' and had been 'evidenced to cause harm'. The panel heard that one expert said Mr Dogbey would experience an 'intense and overwhelming' level of suffering if he were to return to Ghana which would be 'intolerable'. The Consultant Clinical Psychologist said he would 'not be able to cope with the rapid and severe decline in his mental health'. Judge Gill said: 'Given the severe and systemic problems identified in the provision of mental health services, and with no evidence before us to suggest that the position is likely to change, we determine that mental health treatment is not reasonably likely to be accessible or become available to Mr Dogbey for his mental health conditions. 'We therefore find... that Mr Dogbey would face a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his state of health resulting in intense suffering.' The judge said he is allowed to stay on the grounds of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights act.
Daily Mail
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Afghan drug addict is granted asylum in the UK - after winning human rights claim as a judge rules he would face persecution by the Taliban
An Afghan drug addict has won his asylum bid to stay on British shores after a judge ruled he would face persecution by the Taliban. The unnamed man, who left the country when he was nine, won his human rights claim because his dependence on substances made him too 'westernised'. The judge ruled he would be at risk of persecution due to his drug issues being perceived as 'non-Muslim', which would go against societal norms. This is despite evidence that Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium, with 10 per cent of the population being addicts. If the 'vulnerable' asylum seeker were to return to the country, he would be forced to go 'cold turkey' without access to methadone, which would impact his mental health, the judge added. She granted him asylum, further ruling his history of drug addiction meant he would ultimately be at risk of 'inhuman and degrading' treatment if he were to return. The man, who is thought to be 39 years old, first applied for asylum in 2010 but originally claimed to be from Iran, the Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber heard. He did so because if he were to be deported, it would it would be safer for him to return to Iran rather than his home country, the tribunal was told. The judge was told he was a 'vulnerable' individual who suffered both mental health issues and had a long-term drug addiction. It was also heard he has lived a 'transient lifestyle' while in the UK and has 'difficult' relationships with his family members. As well as this, the asylum seeker's representatives said due to his issues, he would likely be perceived as 'westernised' in Afghanistan. Official guidance read by the judges said that people perceived to be westernised may be seen as 'non-Afghani' or 'non-Muslim'. This could also 'overlap with transgressing societal norms', according to the official advice. An asylum seeker's 'mode of dress and history of drug addiction should be considered within this context', the guidance added. His lawyers argued he has been outside the country for many years and has transgressed moral and religious codes - meaning he would be seen as non-Muslim. It was contended that the man would be subjected to a lack of health care support if returned to his native country. They also further noted that Afghanistan remains one of the world's 'worst humanitarian crises and economic challenges'. Ruling the unnamed man as an Afghan not Iranian, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Chapman said he 'fear[ed]' returning to the country having been absent from Afghanistan for three decades. She referred to his statement, in which he said he was 'not a very religious person' and does not fast or pray regularly. It was heard the man, who has been diagnosed with both PTSD and depression, 'actively opposes the views of the Taliban'. The man, who is thought to be 39 years old, first applied for asylum in 2010 but originally claimed to be from Iran as it would be safer for him to be deported there rather than his home country, the tribunal was told Referring to evidence on how the militant group treat drug addicts, she said thousands were 'rounded up, beaten and imprisoned' whilst also being forced 'to go cold turkey without access to methadone or counselling'. The judgement also referred to an Al Jazeera report, which said that the 'physical abuse and imprisonment' of drug addicts by the terrorist organisation is 'systemic and indiscriminate'. It was heard that since the Taliban takeover in 2021, many of the drug treatment centres in the country have been closed down. The tribunal also said the country is the world's leading producer of opium, with approximately 10 per cent of the population being addicts. Ruling the man could remain in the UK, the judge said: 'I find there is a reasonable likelihood that the [asylum seeker] would be unable to access treatment for his drug addiction and that there is a reasonable likelihood that he could be imprisoned and forced to go cold turkey which would inevitably result in a deterioration in his mental health and amount to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to article 3 of ECHR. 'Given the [asylum seeker's] attitude towards the Taliban, lack of strict adherence to Islam, his mode of dress, history of drug addiction and 30 year absence from the country, I find in light of the background evidence that [he] would be at risk of harm if returned to Afghanistan. 'I find that there is a reasonable likelihood that the [asylum seeker] would be subjected to persecution by the Taliban on account of his individual characteristics which would place him within a particular social group.'
