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 used to attend a Kurdish Centre in Istanbul and was asked by the police to become an informer against the PKK on behalf of the authorities. The Appellant refused to assist the authorities and believes if he is returned to Turkey he will be targeted by the Turkish government because of the activities of his cousins as active PKK members. The Appellant left Turkey and travelled to the United Kingdom by lorry clandestinely. He arrived in the United Kingdom on 14 November 1997.
(iv) I do not accept the Appellant was being searched for by the authorities from August until November 1997;
(v) The Appellant's assistance of the PKK was low level in providing food and shelter;
(vi) I do not accept that a close relative of the Appellant was a commander in the Bingol area for the PKK.
(vii) I do not accept that the Appellant has made himself a target of the Turkish authorities by any activities he has engaged in in the United Kingdom." "35 I find that any little interest the Turkish authorities might have had in the Appellant, will, by the passage of time, have now diminished to nothing. I do not accept that the Appellant was a target, in any way, of the Turkish authorities."
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.