Mr Hamat, an Afghan, had been working as the de facto imam of the Afghanistan Islamic Cultural Centre (AICC). He was an illegal immigrant: his asylum claim and subsequent appeals were dismissed and reconsideration of his application was refused. However, Singh J had allowed him to pursue one final challenge, identifying a double failure to address Article 9 ECHR and section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision of the lower tribunal was set aside and the Article 9 and section 13 points then came before the Upper Tribunal in the present proceedings.

The judge noted that this was one of the few cases that raised Article 9 and section 13 as a distinct and separate challenge to the Secretary of State's removal decision, and that that was the only element of the appeal that was pursued before him. There was little dispute about Mr Hamat's voluntary work for the AICC: helping and advising on Islamic issues, organising and leading prayers, reciting the Qur'an during Ramadan and pastoral work. He was not permitted to take up paid employment. In response, the Secretary of State had contended that Mr Hamat was not absolutely irreplaceable and that there was a public interest in removing those who had flouted immigration law.

UTJ Jordan pointed out that section 13 put freedom of thought, conscience and religion in a distinct category of protection and created a statutory right independent of Article 9: no other Convention right was afforded that treatment and it applied to organisations as well as to individuals. Nevertheless, he concluded that, although the views of the AICC and its members had to be taken into account in assessing the public interest criteria, the public interest in Mr Hamat's removal outweighed the keen interest shown by the AICC and its membership in retaining him. The appeal was dismissed. [Frank Cranmer]