Armed Services in UK Law

However, where an individual was ‘wanted’ by the Taliban or Hizb-i-Islami, then the evidence was that the situation in Afghanistan remains sufficiently lawless that if he were found, there would be nothing to prevent them dealing with him as they thought fit. A person who was wanted in his home area for a specific reason would be able to show a real risk of persecution (or treatment entitling him to humanitarian protection, as appropriate) in his home area.

What is proper maintenance must in all cases depend upon all the facts and circumstances of the particular case being considered at the time, but I think it is clear on the one hand that one must not put too limited a meaning on it; it does not mean just enough to enable a person to get by. On the other hand, it does not mean anything which may be regarded as reasonably desirable for his general benefit or welfare.

Absent evidence to show that the appellant was at risk because of his specific circumstances, there could be no real risk of relevant ill-treatment unless the situation to which the appellant would be returning was one in which such violence was generally or consistently happening.

On the other hand, as I have already indicated, I do not think that it is necessary to show that the intention to make a home in the new country is irrevocable or that the person whose intention is under consideration believes that for reasons of health or otherwise he will have no opportunity to change his mind. In my judgment, the true test is whether he Intends to make his home in the new country until the end of his days unless and until something happens to make him change hismind.

So that speaking for myself, except for the purposes of explanation, I shall always ask an assessor as little as possible. Certainly to find, as we have found not only in this case but in several cases which have lately occupied your Lordships' attention, that the different assessors are at variance is much more of a hindrance than an assistance.

I can see no reason why it should not be fair, just and reasonable for the law to leave a responsible adult to assume responsibility for his own actions in consuming alcoholic drink. To dilute self-responsibility and to blame one adult for another's lack of self control is neither just nor reasonable and in the development of the law of negligence an increment too far.

I do not say that there could never be a case where it would be appropriate to allow a defendant to instruct a fresh expert without being required at any stage to disclose an earlier expert's report. For my part, however, I find it difficult to imagine any circumstances in which that would be properly permissible and certainly, to my mind, no such circumstances exist here.