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.
Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellants are granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellants, likely to lead members of the public to identify them. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
             Following a hearing at Birmingham on 1 November 2022 it was found a judge of the First-tier Tribunal had materially erred in law in allowing the appeal pursuant to Article 8 ECHR, as insufficient consideration had been given to the public interest.
             The First-tier Tribunal's dismissal of the Appellants' appeals on international protection grounds and Article 3 ECHR medical grounds were not challenged and are preserved findings.
             The earlier determination was set aside pursuant to Article 8 ECHR on the basis it was not clear from the determination how the Judge factored the public interest into the assessment of the proportionality of the decision, as a reader of the determination was unable to understand (a) whether this had occurred, and, (b) what weight the Judge had given to this aspect.
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.