United Kingdom (2004), England and Wales Court of Appeal

United Kingdom (2004), England and Wales Court of Appeal

P & M v. Secretary of State for Home Department
[2004] EWCA Civ 1640

The first appellant sought asylum in the United Kingdom because she feared that she would be subject to domestic violence in a state where authorities tolerate violence against women. The second appellant appealed for asylum based on the fear that she would be subjected to female genital mutilation. Although the Court granted both requests for asylum, it specified that not all cases of either domestic violence or FGM would necessarily qualify for protection.

“Both P and M contend that there is a lack of state protection of women in Kenya that amounts to discrimination that is due to entrenched societal attitudes towards Kenyan woman... P was entitled to asylum in this country because…of the violence that both she and her children had suffered over the years at the hands of her husband...for her to be returned to Kenya would contravene… Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)

Australia (2002), High Court

Australia (2002), High Court

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v. Khawar
[2002] HCA 14 S128/2001

The woman seeking asylum claimed that Pakistan failed to provide protection against domestic violence, which constitutes a form persecution. The Court found failure to protect can be considered persecution if the criminal conduct of private citizens is condoned by the state.

“Ms Khawar's case is that she was a victim of serious and prolonged domestic violence on the part of her husband and members of his family, that the police in Pakistan refused to enforce the law against such violence or otherwise offer her protection, and that such refusal is part of systematic discrimination against women which is both tolerated and sanctioned by the state.”(Quoted form Original Judgment)

United Kingdom (1999), House of Lords

United Kingdom (1999), House of Lords

Islam (A.P.) v. R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another Ex Parte Shah (A.P.) (Conjoined Appeals)
[1999] 2 WLR 1015, [1999] 2 All ER 545 (HL)

The two conjoined appeals both involved married Pakistani women who were forced by their husbands to leave their homes and seek asylum in the UK as refugees, on the grounds that they feared being falsely accused of adultery and were thus in danger of serious injury or death on being returned to Pakistan. The Lords granted the appeals, on the ground that the appellants are part of the particular group as women in Pakistan who fear being accused of adultery.

“Given the central feature of state-tolerated and state-sanctioned gender discrimination, the argument that the appellants fear persecution not because of membership of a social group but because of the hostility of their husbands is unrealistic… the problem for both women was to specify the ‘social group’ of which they claimed their membership had given rise to persecution.” (Quoted form Original Judgment)