Burden / standard of proof

April 2023 | Publisher: COC Netherlands | Document type: Country Reports

20 March 2023 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

(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

22 July 2022 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Credibility assessment - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

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) | Document type: Case Law | 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

1. In an Article 3 "living conditions" case, there must be a causal link between the Secretary of State's removal decision and any "intense suffering" feared by the returnee. This includes a requirement for temporal proximity between the removal decision and any "intense suffering" of which the returnee claims to be at real risk. This reflects the requirement in Paposhvili [2017] Imm AR 867 for intense suffering to be "serious, rapid and irreversible" in order to engage the returning State's obligations under Article 3 ECHR. A returnee fearing "intense suffering" on account of their prospective living conditions at some unknown point in the future is unlikely to be able to attribute responsibility for those living conditions to the Secretary of State, for to do so would be speculative.

2 February 2022 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

February 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Court Interventions / Amicus Curiae