Judges protect minorities
- Reasoning
- The Supreme Court protected gay asylum seekers.
- Evidence
- It rejected the government's test unanimously.
- How it supports the argument
- It held they could not be expected to hide their sexuality.
ApprovedConcludedCourt case
Title
HJ (Iran) (2010): gay asylum seekers
Date
7 July 2010
Relevant topic(s)
Democracy and participationRights
What happened?
Two gay men, from Iran and Cameroon, sought asylum because they feared persecution. The Court of Appeal had held they could be returned if hiding their sexuality would be 'reasonably tolerable'.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that test: people cannot be expected to conceal their sexuality to avoid persecution.
- The Court of Appeal had held that asylum could be refused if concealing their sexuality on return would be 'reasonably tolerable'.
- On 7 July 2010 the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeals, holding that the 'reasonable tolerability' test was contrary to the Refugee Convention.
- Under the new test, an applicant is protected if fear of persecution is a material reason for concealing their sexuality.
- The Court said that to compel a gay person to pretend their sexuality does not exist denies their fundamental right to be who they are.
Why is it politically significant?
The case shows unelected judges protecting a vulnerable minority against the government's approach to asylum, a common example of courts protecting rights.
How to use
Which arguments does it support?
Which counterarguments exist?
Limits of the evidence
It applies a treaty, not the HRA alone
The ruling turned on the Refugee Convention, so Parliament and the government still decide asylum law.
Concepts and connections
Concepts it illustrates
Related examples
Sources and verification
Event7 July 2010
Added to bank11 November 2026
Last checked11 November 2026
Next check due11 May 2027
- 1Opened
About this example
Is it still current?
Concluded
The development has ended or been reversed, but remains useful evidence.
Why it is in the bank
A clear case of judges protecting a minority's rights.
- ✓Relevance to the specification
- ✓Strength and reliability of the evidence
- ✓Importance to a wider political debate
- ✓Usefulness in evaluative essays
- ✓Connections to other topics
- ✓Sufficiently current
- ✓Adds something new to the bank
Editorial status
Approved
Signed off for students.
Origin: AI draft (Claude) · Reviewer: Editor
Every fact on this page has been checked against original sources.