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] ( and/or any member of his family, expert, witness or other person the Tribunal considers should not be identified ) 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 ( and/or other person ). Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court .
              The appellant appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal Judge S J Clarke ("the Judge") who in a determination dated 6 April 2024 dismissed the appellant's appeal against her asylum, humanitarian and Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights claim.
              Before me, a preliminary point was taken on behalf of the respondent by Mr Parvar which I consider is well-founded, namely that the issue of the CPIN was never raised before the Judge. There is no evidence that it was contained within the consolidated bundle and indeed it has not even been provided before me in the Upper Tier Tribunal in the bundle for the present appeal, despite the fact that permission had been granted on that narrow ground, specifically referring to the CPIN.
              There are further references in the headnote to the requirement upon the parties to ensure that issue is identified for the Judge in the first place and indeed it is stated in terms that:
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.