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 appellant is granted anonymity.
No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
                   The appellant is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago born on 24 March 1984. The appellant made a human rights claim on 3 March 2022 which was refused by the respondent on 12 April 2023. His appeal against the decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Smeaton ('the judge') on 3 April 2024 after a hearing on 23 February 2024.
                   The appellant on 7 May 2024, renewed his application to the Upper Tribunal, in relation to Ground 1, that the judge had not applied the correct standard of proof in considering Article 3, ECHR. It was argued that the judge had misdirected themselves in law with regard to the test under Article 3 ECHR, in particular the evidential threshold to cast doubt on the availability or accessibility of treatment in the receiving state.
                   The matter came before me to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and if so whether any such error was material and thus whether the decision should be set aside. I considered the renewed ground of appeal in a rolled up hearing together with the substantive 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.