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.
       The appellant gave oral evidence, adopting his witness statement of 23 June 2025. He was cross examined by Mr Mullen, Senior Presenting Officer who appeared for the Secretary of State. The appellant explained that he had been diagnosed with HIV whilst in Italy in 2013. He said that he had told two individuals whom he considered 'friends' about his condition but they had told others in his home area of Somalia.
       In his submissions, Mr Mullen said that the appellant would undoubtedly face problems in Somalia on account of his medical condition but there was no evidence that any societal discrimination he may experience would cross the very high threshold of Article 3 ECHR. Mr Mullen did not seek to question the credibility of the oral evidence of the appellant given at the resumed hearing.
       Mr Jebb, for the appellant, submitted that the background material regarding Somalia indicated that there was a real risk that the appellant would suffer Article 3 ECHR ill treatment on return to Somalia. The appellant would face not only discrimination but also the risk of physical abuse. He urged me to allow the appeal on Article 3 ECHR grounds.
       In the circumstances , I remake the decision dismissing the appellant's appeal on asylum and human rights (Article 3 ECHR) grounds .
I remake the decision and dismiss the appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision dated 16 September 2022 on asylum and human rights (Article 3 ECHR) grounds.
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.