ZL and VL and [United Kingdom] Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor's Department

[2003] EWCA Civ 25, [2003] 1 All ER 1062 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

ZL and VL and [United Kingdom] Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Chancellor’s Department

England and Wales Court of Appeals, Civil Division
[2003] EWCA Civ 25, [2003] 1 All ER 1062 (2003)

Facts

ZL and VL (defendants) were a mother and son who arrived in the United Kingdom from the Czech Republic, and the Secretary of State (plaintiff) began deportation proceedings. ZL and VL sought asylum, asserting they suffered persecution as a result of their Roma ethnicity. ZL and VL testified that they lived in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2002 before returning to the Czech Republic. ZL and VL testified that when they returned to the Czech Republic, ZL’s husband was detained by local authorities and VL was verbally and physically assaulted by skinheads. ZL also testified that her children suffered discrimination in hospitals and in schools. ZL and VL testified that, as a result of these incidents, the family returned to the United Kingdom. VL also testified that she was raped by a police officer on two separate occasions. The Secretary of State asserted that the treatment VL and ZL suffered did not reach the threshold of infringing Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention. The Secretary of State also asserted that the Czech Republic authorities provided sufficient protection and that VL failed to establish that the rapes she reported indicated an unwillingness or inability of the authorities to protect Roma individuals. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) found the asylum claim as unfounded under the expedited-review provisions of the Nationality, Immigration, and Asylum Act (NIAA). The IAT found that ZL and VL suffered localized discrimination that did not rise to the level of persecution required under the NIAA. ZL and VL appealed the IAT decision to the court of appeals, renewing their application for asylum.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lord Phillips, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership