Last Updated: Thursday, 29 September 2022, 11:15 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 21-30 of 4,869 results
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

Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case G. v. G.

18 January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Campaign Update, October 2020 - December 2020

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

YD (ALGERIA) Appellant - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT AND UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES Intervener

The issues that arise on this appeal are whether the Upper Tribunal in OO (Algeria) wrongly equated persecution with a risk of being subjected to physical violence and also failed to consider, cumulatively, the impact of the treatment that gay men would face in Algeria. Further, the appeal raises the issues of whether it would be unduly harsh to require the appellant to relocate within Algeria or whether returning him to Algeria would amount to a disproportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention given that he would conceal his sexual orientation if he returned to live in Algeria.

14 December 2020 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity | Countries: Algeria - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Statelessness Determination in the UK

December 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

PK and OS (basic rules of human conduct) Ukraine CG [2020] UKUT 00314 (IAC)

This country guidance covers: - Acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct - Country guidance: the conduct of the Ukrainian military in the conflict in the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone (“the ATO”) - Country guidance: conscripts and mobilised reservists in Ukraine

30 November 2020 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Ukraine - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Written observations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in case C-349/20 NB & AB v Secretary of State for the Home Department before the Court of Justice of the European Union

30 November 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae

Good Practices Paper – Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons

July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo