8 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Board's decision was supported by factual findings and anxious scrutiny, there was no procedural unfairness or legal error, and the existence of the FIR would not have altered the outcome.
24 Jun 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Court found no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision: the Board's findings that the risk of harm was low, that state protection and internal relocation were available, and that the treatments did not meet the required severity were open to the Board and not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
23 Jun 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's findings on credibility, lack of evidence, availability of state protection and internal relocation were supportable on the record and not susceptible to judicial review interference.
16 Jun 2022
Leave was granted because the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success in judicial review: the Board refused to extend time on a technical ground without clearly demonstrating it had considered the merits as required by the applicable statutory provision and binding appellate authority, thereby exposing an arguable public law error warranting review.
31 May 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board gave reasons, its adverse credibility findings were open to it, and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
24 May 2022
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's findings on BOR2 risk; the Board's conclusions that there was insufficient evidence of a real risk to life, that state protection was available and internal relocation viable meant there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
19 May 2022
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to specify any arguable ground; the Board's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness and was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
25 Apr 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk, state protection, internal relocation and credibility involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness and therefore did not justify judicial review.
19 Jul 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on her factual and legal complaints.
18 Jun 2020
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success, and the Board's evaluation of evidence and factual findings were not susceptible to intervention by the court on judicial review.