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 parties are hereafter referred to as they were in the First-tier Tribunal so that MN is the appellant and the Secretary of State for the Home Department is the respondent.
The appellant�s future is still uncertain, and although we were not addressed on the matter, we direct that the current direction granting anonymity continue until further order.
The appellant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. That application was refused by a decision that is dated 11 June 2013 under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. A decision was also taken to remove the appellant from the United Kingdom to her home country of Japan.
The appellant appealed the decision to the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal was heard on 3 December 2013. In a determination promulgated on 28 February 2014 the First-tier Judge allowed the appeal under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
A party to adversarial proceedings is entitled to know the reasons why a decision has or has not gone in their favour. In this appeal it was not sufficient for the judge to set out the evidence that she heard from the appellant together with details of her cross-examination (which was extensive) and then state in one sentence that she finds that the starting point is an assessment of credibility �and I find the appellant to be a credible witness� without providing any specified reason or reasons why she came to that finding.
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.