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.
For the Appellant: Mr K Forrest, Advocate, instructed by Gray & Co, Solicitors, Glasgow
             It was further noted that the appellants said they did not know they could claim asylum in Amsterdam, but they left Namibia with that intention, and were found with German visas on arrival in Glasgow. It was not accepted that they did not know they could claim other than in the UK. Their credibility was adversely affected under reference to section 8 of the 2002 Act.
             The claim was also held to be defeated on grounds of sufficiency of protection and availability of internal relocation in Namibia.
             At [46], the Judge accepted that the appellants had two children in Namibia, living with their grandparents, but not that the first appellant was married to a tribal chief, or the conduct of an illicit affair for many years, finding it "far more likely" that the appellants "are (and have been for many years) a couple with two children". He gave little weight to a copy certificate of the marriage with Hiiho or to letters "said to be from the Ovaherero Traditional Authority".
             At [47], the Judge said that issues of internal relocation and sufficiency of protection did not arise, given his findings, but "for the sake of completeness" adopted the respondent's decision on those issues.
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.