*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, discusses the upcoming changes to pensions and Inheritance Tax and the potential impact on your financial future
Save the Children UK is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
The Chief Legal Officer to the Metropolitan Police, barrister Brett Welch, tells Anthony Inglese CB about his mission and the work to turn the Met around
Barrister apprenticeships – shortly to provide the fourth pathway to the Bar – are an ideal opportunity to support local talent and ‘grow your own’, say Tim Coulson and Dr Jane Dennehy
Grok around and find out – or not? Mariya Peykova investigates the nudification scandal, what the law has to say about sexually explicit deepfakes, and whether stronger regulation is needed
Oliver Lewis spotlights an overlooked yet rapidly evolving area of law – coercive and controlling behaviour within care contexts
.tmb-carlisting.jpg?sfvrsn=9ca7ad96_1)
