‘When local lawyers obtained relevant documents from a domestic court in relation to an asylum claim and thereafter transmitted them directly to lawyers in the United Kingdom, there was no basis in domestic or European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence for the general approach that there was a rebuttable presumption that documents so obtained were reliable, with the presumption capable of being displaced by evidence or submissions from the Home Secretary. Rather the jurisprudence did no more than indicate that the circumstances of particular cases might exceptionally necessitate an element of investigation by the national authorities in order to provide effective protection against mistreatment, although such a step would frequently not be feasible or it might be unjustified or disproportionate.’
WLR Daily, 18th July 2014
‘When formulating country guidance for Sri Lanka in relation to individuals likely to be in need of international refugee protection the Upper Tribunal had been justified in departing from the more generous UNHCR Guidelines in setting out what the risk categories were.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
European Court of Human Rights
” The level of risk of ill-treatment in returning failed asylum-seekers to Sri Lanka was indicated by the fact that since 2007 the European Court of Human Rights has granted interim measures preventing the return of 342 Tamil applicants from the United Kingdom.”
The Times, 28th July 2008
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.