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.

Until 12 June 2013 Captain Wildbur was a full-time commissioned officer in the British Army. He was on a short-service commission but had provisionally been accepted for a long-term IRC (a regular commission) in substitution. The claimant was highly likely, it was thought, to obtain promotion to a Major and it was asserted on his behalf in his grounds that he had a reasonable prospect thereafter of securing an appointment as Lieutenant Colonel.

Under regulations made in 2011, required to adjust the size of the Army, some officers had to be selected for compulsory redundancy. The defendant was required by the Government to ensure that the process of selection was fair, logical and based on clear published criteria. The claimant, as it happened, did not fall within the criteria, but because of errors on the part of the defendant was erroneously thought to do so and was regarded as eligible for — and therefore selected for — redundancy.

My task is to determine if the decision which the Panel reached is unlawful.

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.