R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator

R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 is a landmark case in UK immigration law, concerning the interpretation and application of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the context of deportation and removal.

The case involved two appellants, Ullah and Doos, both of whom were facing deportation from the United Kingdom. Ullah, a Pakistani national, claimed that he would face persecution in Pakistan due to his Ahmadiyya religious beliefs. Doos, a Sri Lankan national, claimed he would face ill-treatment due to the general human rights situation in Sri Lanka at the time.

The House of Lords, the highest court in the UK at the time, considered the scope of Article 3 and its applicability to cases where individuals faced a risk of ill-treatment that did not amount to persecution but was still considered to be severe. The court emphasized that Article 3 imposed an absolute obligation on states not to subject individuals to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

A key principle established by the case is the "Ullah principle" (sometimes referred to as the "mirror principle"). This principle states that domestic courts should interpret the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporates the ECHR into UK law) in a way that keeps pace with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. In other words, UK courts should not go beyond the existing case law of the ECtHR. The House of Lords made it clear that UK courts could not create new rights or broaden the scope of existing rights under the ECHR beyond what had already been established by the ECtHR.

The Ullah case significantly shaped the approach of UK courts in dealing with human rights claims in immigration cases. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the Strasbourg jurisprudence and clarified the limitations on the interpretive powers of domestic courts in relation to the ECHR.