Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Consideration of Zimbabwean national’s medical evidence in subsidiary protection application was lawful
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses judicial review of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal's decision refusing a Zimbabwean national subsidiary protection, on the grounds that the tribunal's consideration of his medical evidence was lawful.
udicial review - asylum and immigration - Zimbabwean national challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to refuse him subsidiary protection - claims that he was wanted by the Zimbabwean police - wife was the subject of a one-off assault by a police officer, involving being struck on the head and being sexually assaulted - adverse credibility findings - argued that he should have succeeded given the SPIRASI report in relation to his wife - SPIRASI report - requirement to "engage with" findings in the medical reports - complaint that he was not put on notice that the SPIRASI report was not going to be viewed as sufficient to prove the case - no fair procedures obligation exists to put to an applicant a proposition that his or her evidence is insufficient to prove their case - judicial review refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
