The fear of being punished for refusing to be drafted into a country’s defence forces, where the claimant would be a conscientious objector, and the right to such objections would not be recognised, was not sufficient to justify an application for asylum. It was an internationally recognised preference that such objections to military service should be allowed, but that preference had not reached the point of becoming a legal requirement, and no right not to be drafted had been established..
Citations:
Times 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 681
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Sepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Sepet and Bulbil v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 20-Mar-2003
The appellants sought asylum. They were Kurdish pacifists, and claimed that they would be forced into the armed forces on pain of imprisonment if they were returned to Turkey.
Held: The concept of ‘persecution’ was central. It is necessary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147543