Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Mr N Ahmed (counsel instructed by Burton & Burton, Nottingham) for the appellant
This is an appeal from a decision of an adjudicator (Mrs M Gurung-Thapa), sitting at Birmingham on 15 April 2003, dismissing an asylum and human rights appeal by a citizen of Chad. Permission to appeal was given on the basis of allegations about the adjudicator's conduct of the hearing.
b) (also p 6) a too-wide ranging foray of the adjudicator's own on the details of the claimant's account of the route and times he took in doing so; and
They should not interrupt evidence in chief or cross-examination, except in the circumstances referred to at � 42, "� or for other reasons associated with the general control of the case or the court room". It is nearly always best to wait until after cross-examination and re-examination (where there is either) to see what is put before taking up inconsistencies; but adjudicators are not limited to points raised by the other party (either in the refusal letter or at the hearing), though they should not pursue a different case or theory altogether.
Questions by adjudicators should not be asked "� in any hostile manner or in a manner which suggests that the Adjudicator's mind has been made up." They should not be of a leading kind, or concealed traps, but direct and open-ended. Adjudicators should not take over conduct of the case; but the fact that questions they asked may help one side or the other does not make them unfair.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.