Court Rules on Treatment for Migrants

posted: 14/04/2009

Almost a year after the High Court said most migrants are entitled to free NHS hosptal treatment, the Appeal Court has now rejected that ruling. The long running struggle to ensure people living with HIV in this country always have free treatment will continue.

Although the Appeal Court ruling says there is no legal right to treatment, they did rule that the Department of Health Guidelines are unlawful.

Almost a year ago the High Court ruled that most migrants were "ordinarily resident" even if their asylum claim was refused. About a year before that the application was made to the High Court after a NHS hospital refused free treatment to a migrant. The Courts are very slow because there aren't enough courts and judges to deal with this type of case - a 'judicial review.'

Appeal Court rules

On the 30 March 2009 the Court of Appeal decided that the Department of Health's own guidance restricting access to healthcare for migrants is unlawful.

Solicitors brought a test case for the HIV and migrants organisations on behalf of a Palestinian former asylum seeker who is unable to return home and could not pay for treatment.

He was given the treatment he needed after the solicitors applied to court but the case went ahead anyway as a test case and to challenge to the government’s guidance.

At the High Court a year ago Mr Justice Mitting decided that refused asylum seekers could get free NHS treatment. His ruling was that migrants, including refused asylum seekers, are just as 'ordinarily resident' as any British person, and this entitles people to free NHS treatment.

Not lawfully resident

The Department of Health then appealed and now the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the High Court's approach, finding that refused asylum-seekers could not be lawfully resident in the UK. Anyone not lawfully resident cannot be ordinarily resident, and that means no right to free treatment.

However, the Court also decided that the guidance is unlawful because it fails to explain what hospital’s should do if a patient cannot pay for treatment and cannot return home immediately.

The solicitors are considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords or not, and would need the House of Lords permission to make an appeal. 

In the meantime there is likely to be confusion about how to apply the judgement and the new guidance. The Department of Health has wasted no time in telling NHS Trusts to follow the Appeal Court's ruling.

Reactions to ruling

Solicitor Adam Hundt of Pierce Glynn, who took the case commented:

“The Dept. of Health guidance said that hospitals should not provide treatment unless patients paid for it in advance, but this ignores the fact that many of these patients, like A, are destitute, and many cannot return home, so they are not treated until they require life-saving treatment. In my experience, sadly, by that time it is often too late, and that treatment is usually far more expensive, so the current rules don’t make clinical, economic or humanitarian sense, and I am glad that the Court has recognised this. I hope that the Dept of Health will now make it clear to hospitals that they must treat patients who cannot pay and cannot return home for the time being - and not just wait until they are at death’s door.” 
 

The decision disappointed refugee and health welfare groups. Donna Covey, of the Refugee Council, said she was concerned that the charging regime for failed asylum seekers was still in place. She said those people who were unable to go home straight away often ended up destitute and homeless. "To refuse treatment to them simply because they cannot pay for it is appalling and inhumane," she said.

Deborah Jack, of the National Aids Trust, said anxiety over medical bills would deter many people from seeking the care they needed. She said the government should use its review of healthcare charges to end its policy of ill-health for the most destitute.

Department of health advice letter

The Department of Health has issued a letter to NHS trusts before the new Guidance is published in the autumn.

The letter says 

• Trusts shouldn't charge people treated free as 'ordinarily resident' for the period of time between the two court rulings
• people already on treatment are entitled to have it continued for free
• Trusts must always provide any immediately necessary treatment, including all maternity treatment. It's a matter for clinical judgement if care is 'immediately necessary.' HIV care could fall within this - especially if there is symptomatic illness, or CD4 count is low.
• Trusts must provide urgent treatment (which is treatment that isn't immediately necessary but which can't wait until the person can be reasonably be expected to return to their home country). This is likely to include HIV care under BHIVA treatment guidelines. It is a matter of clinical judgement whether the care is 'urgent'.
• Treatment should not be delayed or cancelled if the person can't pay for urgent or immediately necessary treatment.
• Trusts have the option to write off debts where it proves impossible to recover them, or where it would be futile to begin pursuing them, for instance when the person is known to be without funds (our emphasis - this will apply to most migrants with HIV).
• even non-urgent routine elective treatment can be provided depending on how long the person is likely to remain in this country - eg if the return home is not likely to be within a 'medically acceptable time.'
• immediately necessary, urgent and non-urgent treatment will require Trusts to assess when a patient is likely to return home based on "their plans, intentions or ability to do so."
• Trusts must not charge anyone identified as actual or suspected victims of human trafficking by either the UK Border Agency, or the UK Human Trafficking Centre. This is nothing to do with the Appeal Court, but because the European Convention on human trafficking came into force on 1 April.
• can't now bill the person's local Primary Care Trust for treating any people who are "chargeable."

The Department of Health letter says they will update the Guidelines, as required by the Court, in the autumn. HIV and migrants organisations will be pressing for a practical, humane approach.

People living with HIV in NW England who have problems with treatment charging for hospital care should always contact our services team.

The Appeal Court's ruling

Swiss Court Frees HIV+ Man

posted: 10/03/2009

In the first ruling of its kind in the world, the Geneva Court of Justice has freed a man given 18-months prison for exposing someone to HIV.The court ruled that the risk of HIV transmission while the man was on treatment was far too low to justify the conviction.

In Switzerland, public health law effectively made it a crime simply for people with HIV to have any  unprotected sex. However this court has now changed this. It accepted expert testimony from Professor Bernard Hirschel – one of the authors of the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS consensus statement on the effect of treatment on transmission – that the risk of sexual HIV transmission during unprotected sex on successful treatment is 1 in 100,000. It ruled that this level of risk was far too low to keep unprotected sex a public health crime.

The case began in Lausanne in 2007, when a court sentenced the HIV-positive man, originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to a suspended 28-month sentence for having unprotected sex, without telling his woman partner his HIV status.

Swiss HIV Law

Under the public health parts of the Swiss criminal law, Article 231 allows prosecutions against HIV-positive individuals for having unprotected sex, with or without disclosure. The UK doesn’t have a public health criminal law about disease exposure. Prosecuting and criminalising public health was dropped in the UK because it goes against the principle of encouraging people to come for testing and treatment. Criminalising public health drives people with health needs underground and protecting public health becomes far more difficult.

People with HIV in Switzerland can also be prosecuted under Article 122, for an attempt to engender grievous bodily harm. This makes it an attempted grievous bodily harm to have unprotected sex, even if there is no HIV transmission. People with HIV in Switzerland are jailed simply for having unprotected sex. This can't happen under English law. Here HIV transmission has to take place before the charge of "grievous bodily harm" can be made. There is no English crime of attempted grievous bodily harm.

Deborah Glejser of Swiss community HIV organisation, Groupe SIDA Genève, explains that although this public health law could be used even more harshly, to prosecute unprotected sex even when HIV status has been disclosed, in practice, the Swiss only prosecute HIV exposure without disclosure. Suspended sentences are normal so this man’s imprisonment was unusual.

Trial judge refused to consider Swiss statement

A second complaint last year led to the man standing trial again in Geneva in November 2008. According to a report in The Geneva Tribune, an expert medical witness had testified that although treatment greatly reduces the risk of transmission, there remained a residual risk. Although the man's lawyer had put forward the statement by the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS as evidence, and Geneva's deputy public prosecutor wanted to suspend the hearing to consult with the Swiss HIV Commission, the lower Geneva court refused to allow this. This made it his second conviction so he was sent to jail for 18 months, in December 2008.

This clearly annoyed the deputy Public Prosecutor who felt justice was not being done or being seen to be done. The court refused to consider the evidence even the prosecutor thought was relevant. We are left with the suspicion that a white Swiss native would have not been jailed for 18 months like this black African migrant. The British pattern of a disproportionate numbers of migrants being jailed for HIV crimes is found across much of the globe

It's Super-Public-Prosecutor to the rescue

Late in February the deputy public prosecutor came to the rescue and told the Geneva Court of Justice that he was convinced by the Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS that the risk of transmission for an HIV-positive individual on successful treatment was less than 1 in 100,000. Under the circumstances he wanted to appeal so as to withdraw the charge and for the court to cancel the conviction.

On Monday, the Geneva Court of Justice acquitted the man, who was freed  after almost three months in prison. Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, called for the appeal, told the newspaper Le Temps that although there is still some debate regarding the slight risks of transmission in people on successful treatment this should not be used unfairly: "One shouldn't convict people for hypothetical risks,” he said.

Swiss statement did what it set out to do

Professor Hirschel said that he was very pleased with the outcome. It was, he said, the main reason that he and his colleagues issued their January 2008 statement of advise for courts and prosecutors.

The Swiss panel has had enormous global attention and a great deal of criticism for openly talking about and applying the lessons of modern HIV treatment to the lives of people living with HIV. Swiss HIV clinicians wanted to put a stop to much of the jailing of people with HIV - simply for having unprotected sex without any HIV transmission.

Deborah Glejser of Groupe SIDA Genève added that Monday’s ruling means that, in Switzerland, HIV-positive people on treatment which is working properly should no longer be prosecuted for having unprotected sex. She hopes that this ruling will help people in other countries that prosecute HIV exposure – and she’s been contacted by many already.

Hopes for fall in global prosecutions

Last May, a five member US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces panel rejected, but only by a narrow majority, an appeal by an HIV-positive soldier who had previously pleaded guilty to HIV exposure, following unprotected sex with two women without disclosing his HIV status. And last July, a Canadian court considered and rejected the Swiss statement in the case of a man charged with having unprotected sex with six women.

Following Monday's ruling, however, Geneva’s deputy public prosecutor, Yves Bertossa, believes it is only a matter of time before other jurisdictions realise that prosecutions for HIV exposure should not take place when the accused is on successful antiretroviral therapy. He told Radio Lac: “There are some medical advances which can change the law. I think that in other [parts of Switzerland] or in other countries, the same conclusions should apply to their laws."

source

Zimbabwe - Removals Halted

posted: 17/12/2008

The government has effectively decided that most Zimbabweans in the UK can now remain, at least until the situation in Zimbabwe radically improves.

It has said it will not appeal the key decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated so far that only people who can prove they are supporters of the governing Zanu-PF should be returned. 

On 19th November 2008 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal published a determination on a significant country guidance case for Zimbabwe.

The Tribunal found that anyone who is unable to demonstrate support for or loyalty Zanu-PF or the regime is at risk if returned to Zimbabwe. However, each case will have to be decided one by one, depending on the person's own relationship to Zanu-PF - friend or foe?

Fresh Claims

If a failed asylum seeker can show that they will not be able to demonstrate loyalty to the regime, then that could be enough to make a fresh claim. A significant number of Zimbabweans who have been refused asylum should now benefit from this decision, particularly those who have been in the UK for some time.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's decision in RN  was long awaited by thousands of Zimbabwean asylum seekers in the U.K. The decision at last offers real hope to the 7,500, a significant number of whom are living with HIV, whose applications for asylum in the UK had been refused by the Government and the Tribunal on the basis that there was nothing stopping them from returning to Zimbabwe.

Humanitarian claims too, if no basic necessities

The Tribunal’s momentous decision was for a person known as RN, a teacher from Zimbabwe who came to the UK nearly three years ago to escape violence from supporters of Mugabe’s regime. In allowing RN’s appeal on refugee and human rights grounds, the Tribunal concluded that all those Zimbabweans in the UK who cannot demonstrate loyalty to the Zanu-PF regime should be granted permission to stay and work in the UK until it is safe for them to return to Zimbabwe. The Tribunal also recognised that those who may be deprived of all the basic necessities of life if returned to Zimbabwe should be granted permission to stay here on humanitarian grounds.

The Tribunal made a similar decision in 2005 but the Government appealed and the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal. Several further test cases went to the Court of Appeal and the matter remained unresolved until the Government’s decision this week not to challenge RN. The solicitor for RN, from the Immigration Advisory Service, Julian Bild, commented:

“The Government’s decision this week not to challenge the judgement in RN’s appeal is a welcome recognition of the real dangers that face Zimbabweans if removed from the UK. I am sure that most of the Zimbabweans in the UK would choose to go home if they could do so safely and with dignity but with the current appalling levels of violence and destitution to which Zimbabwe has descended the result of the test case was clearly the correct one. The Government must act quickly to implement the decision.

“Those Zimbabweans who have previously failed in their applications for asylum in the UK should quickly get legal advice from accredited legal representatives on their position following the test case decision”.

source source2

Briefing from Refugee Council

The Tribunal's decision reference for the case is RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083 [November 2008]