*/
Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85.
Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellants had all claimed asylum in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan as minors. Their claims had been refused and they had been granted discretionary leave to remain, in the case of the appellant in the first appeal, for periods of under one year, which, they contended, excluded them from appealing against the rejection of their asylum claims because s 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provided that an appeal against the rejection of an asylum application could only be made where the person had been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for a period exceeding one year. Appeals to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on the ground that ss 82 and 83 of the 2002 Act were incompatible with their rights to an effective remedy under art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting an withdrawing refugee status) were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decisions, holding that the scheme under s 83 of the 2002 Act satisfied the requirement of providing an effective remedy for an applicant who was refused asylum, but given leave to remain for a matter of months, and was accordingly, not incompatible with art 39 of Directive (EC) 2005/85.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
