header-logo header-logo

12 April 2013
Issue: 7555 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

J1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 279, [2013] All ER (D) 283 (Mar)

It was established law that: (i) in cases where the claimant sought asylum or a right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds, the court or tribunal had to determine that claim on the basis of current evidence; (ii) where the claim was based upon dangers confronting the claimant in their home state, that determination involved an assessment of what would happen, or what there was a real risk of happening, in the future; (iii) in determining the claim the court or tribunal would take into account any undertaking or assurance given by the secretary of state, in so far as it was relevant to the issues under consideration; (iv) such an assurance or undertaking could not cut down the legal protection to which the claimant was entitled; (v) if the route or method of return was unknown, the court or tribunal might in appropriate cases leave that matter for later decision by the secretary of state, and if the secretary of state failed to address the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll