*/
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.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt
