Asylum in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • E v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal
    • 02 fév. 2004

    First, there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter. Secondly, the fact or evidence must have been "established", in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material (not necessarily decisive) part in the Tribunal's reasoning.

  • Januzi and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 15 fév. 2006

    The decision-maker, taking account of all relevant circumstances pertaining to the claimant and his country of origin, must decide whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to relocate or whether it would be unduly harsh to expect him to do so. The decision-maker must do his best to decide, on such material as is available, where on the spectrum the particular case falls. All must depend on a fair assessment of the relevant facts.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Bugdaycay
    • House of Lords
    • 19 fév. 1987

    The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual's right to life and when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant's life at risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny. The most fundamental of all human rights is the individual's right to life and when an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant's life at risk, the basis of the decision must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny.

  • R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • Court of Appeal
    • 18 mar. 2003

    The Attorney-General recognised the possibility of duress by threats against the families of asylum seekers, and this phenomenon is recorded in the Home Office research. It is also clear that some asylum seekers are so much under the influence of the agents who are shepherding them into the country that they cannot be criticised for accepting implicitly what they are told by them. To disregard the effect that they may have on their charges would be both unrealistic and unjust.

  • R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service
    • House of Lords
    • 17 oct. 2002

    The use of the word "solely" makes it clear that only the able bodied destitute are excluded from the powers and duties of section 21(1)(a). The infirm destitute remain within. Their need for care and attention arises because they are infirm as well as because they are destitute. They would need care and attention even if they were wealthy. They would not of course need accommodation, but that is not where section 21(1A) draws the line.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Robinson
    • Court of Appeal
    • 11 juil. 1997

    When we refer to an obvious point we mean a point which has a strong prospect of success if it is argued.

  • R (Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • House of Lords
    • 17 juin 2004

    (4) If so, is such interference necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others?

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results