The applicant sought asylum, saying that it would be unsafe to order his return. The issue before the House was as to when the need for protection should be assesed where, as here, there had been a series of appeals over time.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. ‘Common sense indicates that the final decision, whenever it is made, should be based on the most up to date evidence that is available. Facts which are of historical interest only do not provide a sound basis for a determination that an asylum seeker is entitled to protection now.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2007] UKHL 57, [2008] 3 All ER 97, 2003 SLT 1409, (2008) 158 NLJ 30, 2008 SC (HL) 132, 2008 SCLR 151 171, (2008) 152(1) SJLB 22
Links:
Statutes:
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2005 (SI 2005/230) 32
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Scotland
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262256