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, I make an anonymity order. Unless the Upper Tribunal or a Court directs otherwise, no report of these proceedings or any form of publication thereof shall directly or indirectly identify the appellant or members of his family. This direction applies to, amongst others, all parties. Any failure to comply with this direction could give rise to contempt of court proceedings.
The Appellant is a Sudanese national, born on 1 July 1987. He is a non-Arab Darfuri, and is a member of the Berti tribe. He entered the United Kingdom on 28 July 2015 and applied for asylum on 29 July 2015. On 11 November 2015, he was granted refugee status and leave to remain until 10 November 2020.
On 28 August 2017, the Appellant committed two sexual offences. While drunk and under the influence of the drug Spice, he attacked two different lone women in west London within a short period of time and made unwanted and forceful sexual advances on them. The first woman was able to fight him off and run away. The second woman screamed and managed to fight him off, and he was apprehended by passers-by. On 10 November 2017, following his guilty plea to these offences, he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment for each offence to run consecutively, coming to 4 years in total.
On 6 August 2019, the Secretary of State took a decision to revoke his refugee status. The decision stated in paragraph 2 that the Appellant had not made any representations against the proposed revocation. It set out the Appellant's history and the relevant legal framework for decisions to revoke refugee status. The remarks of the judge who sentenced the Appellant showed that the effects of his attacks were considerable, and they had serious consequences for the victims of the attacks.
The Appellant appealed that judgment to the Upper Tribunal. By a decision promulgated on 24 February 2020, Upper Tribunal Judges Kopieczek and Norton-Taylor allowed the appeal on the basis that Judge Baldwin erred in law by refusing the application for an adjournment. An expert report could have addressed both parts of section 72(2), and could have made a difference to the outcome of the appeal. The factual findings of Judge Baldwin would not be preserved. The error of law decision is appended to this decision.
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.