Case Law

(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

The issue in the case focuses on the Defendant's determination of whether the Claimant is a child, as the effect of such a finding has an impact on a number of aspects of how he will be treated within the United Kingdom. The precise terms of the issue are themselves disputed: (1) The Claimant submits that his case is a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision of the Defendant, on 11 June 2021 ["the June determination"], that he was not a child. (2) The Defendant argues that these proceedings are, in fact, about their refusal to reassess the 11 June determination at some later date.

17 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Children-at-risk - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: South Sudan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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 | Topic(s): Asylum policy - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) | Countries: Eritrea - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The determination of the First-tier Tribunal to dismiss the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim was reached by a process which was procedurally unfair as it did not give her sufficient opportunity to obtain evidence from Uganda to support her claim. The determination will be quashed and the defendant will be ordered to use his best endeavours to facilitate the return of the claimant to the United Kingdom to enable her to continue with her appeal. The claimant was lawfully detained from 21 July 2013 to 6 August 2013 and from 10 September 2013 until her removal to Uganda on 12 December 2013. The claimant was unlawfully detained from (and including) 6 August 2013 up to 10 September 2013.

24 June 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Uganda - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Torture | Countries: Sri Lanka - 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) | 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