S v Secretary of State for the Home Department
The immigration judge's structuring of the decision, by considering medical evidence only after reaching adverse credibility findings, created at least the appearance that the evidence could not affect the outcome. This was a structural error, giving the applicant a real prospect of success on appeal.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: S; Defendant/respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 09 May 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (asylum/immigration) / Permission to Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal granted
- Legal Topics
- Assessment of Credibility, Medical Evidence in Asylum Claims, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
S
Claimant/appellant
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (asylum/immigration) / Permission to Appeal From Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the immigration judge erred in law by failing to integrate medical evidence into the assessment of credibility
- 2 Whether the structure of the decision rendered the medical evidence ineffective in influencing the credibility findings
- 3 Whether the point raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal could be entertained
Ratio Decidendi
The immigration judge's structuring of the decision, by considering medical evidence only after reaching adverse credibility findings, created at least the appearance that the evidence could not affect the outcome. This was a structural error, giving the applicant a real prospect of success on appeal.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal granted
Orders
- Application allowed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment