Last Updated: Friday, 26 May 2023, 13:32 GMT
Latest Refworld Updates for Afghanistan RSS feed

Afghanistan - flag Afghanistan

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 14 results
R (on the application of BG) v London Borough of Hackney (social media; candour; disclosure) [2022] UKUT 00338 (IAC)

(1) The duty of candour which applies in judicial review proceedings obliges the parties to disclose all material facts, including those which are or appear to be adverse to his case. (2) That duty also obliges the parties to make reasonable enquiries to identify such facts, so as to ensure that the judge dealing with the application has the full picture. (3) In practice, the duty of candour obliges an applicant’s legal representatives in Age Assessment Judicial Review proceedings to: (i) Ascertain what social media and other methods of communication are used by the applicant; (ii) Consider the relevant accounts with a view to ascertaining whether they contain any material which potentially undermines the applicant’s case; and (iii) Disclose any material which might be relevant to the case, including any material adverse to the applicant. (4) The duty is a self-policing one, but the Upper Tribunal might legitimately require a ‘disclosure statement’ from an applicant’s solicitor, confirming that the applicant has disclosed to them the details of any social media accounts that they hold and that the solicitor in question has undertaken a reasonable and proportionate search of those accounts in order to ensure that all documents relevant to the issues in the case have been disclosed. (5) When the Upper Tribunal considers an application for specific disclosure, it will be a highly material consideration that the applicant’s solicitor has made such a disclosure statement. (6) In order for the Upper Tribunal to make an order for specific disclosure, it is necessary for there to have been an application for the same; such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Instead, the test will always be whether, in the given case, disclosure appears to be necessary in order to resolve the matter fairly and justly. (7) An order for specific disclosure of material from an applicant’s social media accounts is likely to represent an interference with 2 their private life and it is necessary to consider the breadth of the disclosure required in order to decide whether a less intrusive measure might suffice.

27 October 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of AS (by his litigation friend Francesco Jeff) v Kent County Council (age assessment; dental evidence)

11 September 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Benefit of the doubt - Burden of proof - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of AA) v The London Borough of Ealing IJR

19 June 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of AS) v London Borough of Croydon AAJR

25 November 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of YK) v Birmingham City Council (AAJR)

30 May 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan

MJ (Singh v Belgium : Tanveer Ahmed unaffected) Afghanistan v the Secretary of State for the Home Department

1 May 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of JS) v. Birmingham City Council AAJR

27 February 2013 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of JK) v Nottingham City Council (AAJR)

19 September 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of MNA) v London Borough of Croydon (AAJR)

5 September 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

R (on the application of RJ) v London Borough of Ealing (AAJR)

13 August 2012 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld