*/
Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had originally travelled to Italy and sought asylum or refugee status, but had left Italy and arrived in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State determined that they should be returned to Italy and certified their claims as clearly unfounded. The appellants had all sought judicial review of those decisions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had concluded, based on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other cases: C-411/10 and C-493/10 [2012] All ER (EC) 1011 (NS), that the sole ground on which a second state was required to exercise its power under art 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation to entertain a re-application for asylum or humanitarian protection, and to refrain from returning the applicant to the state of first arrival, was that the source of risk to the applicant was a systemic deficiency, known to the former, in the latter's asylum or reception procedures. On the facts, the situation in Italy had not reached that mark. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred and misinterpreted NS. The correct test had remained that in Soering v United Kingdom (Application 14038/88)[1989] ECHR 14038/88.
Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had originally travelled to Italy and sought asylum or refugee status, but had left Italy and arrived in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State determined that they should be returned to Italy and certified their claims as clearly unfounded. The appellants had all sought judicial review of those decisions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had concluded, based on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other cases: C-411/10 and C-493/10 [2012] All ER (EC) 1011 (NS), that the sole ground on which a second state was required to exercise its power under art 3(2) of the Dublin II Regulation to entertain a re-application for asylum or humanitarian protection, and to refrain from returning the applicant to the state of first arrival, was that the source of risk to the applicant was a systemic deficiency, known to the former, in the latter's asylum or reception procedures. On the facts, the situation in Italy had not reached that mark. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had erred and misinterpreted NS. The correct test had remained that in Soering v United Kingdom (Application 14038/88)[1989] ECHR 14038/88.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
