Burden / standard of proof / Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports)

(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) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

1. Whether there has been a change of conditions in Burma to justify a departure from the country guidance in TS. 2. Second, whether this appellant is reasonably likely to be at prospective risk in Burma, given his particular political profile and likely political activities in Burma, in light of TS and / or the updated country conditions. 3. Third, and in the alternative, whether the appellant would be unable to renew his passport or obtain a certificate of identity (‘CoI’) from the Burmese Embassy, with the result that he would be detained on return to Burma.

9 January 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Changes of circumstances in home country - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Myanmar - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

11 September 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | 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

19 January 2017 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Nepal - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

20 December 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

13 October 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations - Burden of proof - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Exclusion clauses | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This decision replaces AT and Others Libya CG [2014] UKUT 318 (IAC) in respect of assessment of the art 15(c) risk.

20 September 2016 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Conflict situation - EU Qualification Directive - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Libya - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

11 December 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - False documents | Countries: Sierra Leone - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Submissions on behalf of UNHCR were made on 5 November 2014 and 3 June 2015.

30 July 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Persecution based on political opinion | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland