Last Updated: Friday, 05 November 2021, 15:03 GMT
Refworld Home
Latest Refworld Updates for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland RSS feed

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - flag United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 4,852 results
UNHCR Observations on the Nationality and Borders Bill, Bill 141, 2021-22

October 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

R (on the application of BF (Eritrea)) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2021] UKSC 38

The issues in the appeal are (1) whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in assessing the lawfulness of the policy guidance by reference to whether it (a) created a real risk of more than a minimal number of children being detained, and/or (b) created a risk which could be avoided if the terms of the policy were better formulated; and (2) whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that criterion C, as construed in the context of the relevant policy as a whole, is unlawful.

30 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Eritrea - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Ainte (material deprivation – Art 3 – AM (Zimbabwe)) [2021] UKUT 0203 (IAC)

(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU.

22 July 2021 | 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): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

#IBelong Campaign Update, April 2021 - June 2021

9 July 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News

The Impact of COVID-19 on Stateless Populations: Policy recommendations and good practices on vaccine access and civil registration

3 June 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

KK and RS (sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka.

27 May 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Political asylum - Political situation - Returnees | Countries: Sri Lanka - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UNHCR Observations on the New Plan for Immigration policy statement of the Government of the United Kingdom

4 May 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

G v G [2021] UKSC 9

This case concerned the application of the Hague Convention on child abduction and UK asylum law. The court concluded that a child cannot be removed by a Hague Convention order until after a final determination on the principal applicant's asylum claim.

19 March 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Abduction | Countries: South Africa - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

V.C.L. and A.N. v. The United Kingdom (applications nos. 77587/12 and 74603/12)

The Court held that once the authorities had become aware of a credible suspicion that an individual had been trafficked, he or she should be assessed by a qualified person. Any decision to prosecute should follow such an assessment, and while the decision would not necessarily be binding on a prosecutor, the prosecutor would need to have clear reasons for reaching a different conclusion. In the case of both V.C.L. and A.N., the Court found that despite the existence of credible suspicion that they had been trafficked, neither the police nor the prosecution service had referred them to a competent authority for assessment; although both cases were subsequently reviewed by the prosecution service, it disagreed with the conclusion of the competent authority without giving clear reasons capable of undermining the competent authority’s conclusions; and the Court of Appeal limited itself to addressing whether the decision to prosecute had been an abuse of process. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Article 4 in both applicants’ cases. The Court found that, although the authorities had made some accommodations to the applicants after their guilty verdicts, the lack of any assessment of whether the applicants had been victims of trafficking may have prevented them from securing important evidence capable of helping their defence. As such the proceedings had not been fair, leading to a violation of Article 6 § 1.

16 February 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Survivors of trafficking / Persons at risk of trafficking - Trafficking in persons | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - Viet Nam

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. OA

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules: (1) Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements to be met by the ‘protection’ to which that provision refers in respect of the cessation of refugee status must be the same as those which arise, in relation to the granting of that status, from Article 2(c) of that directive, read together with Article 7(1) and (2) thereof. (2) Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83, read together with Article 7(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that any social and financial support provided by private actors, such as the family or the clan of a third country national concerned, falls short of what is required under those provisions to constitute protection and is, therefore, of no relevance either to the assessment of the effectiveness or availability of the protection provided by the State within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of that directive, or to the determination, under Article 11(1)(e) of that directive, read together with Article 2(c) thereof, of whether there continues to be a well-founded fear of persecution.

20 January 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Cessation clauses - State protection | Countries: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo