Youssef v Foreign Secretary
[2012] EWHC 2091 (Admin) had approved the redactions on the grounds of public interest immunity. Thirdly, the Tribunal had erred in failing to address the submissions made on behalf of the Secretary of State to the effect that the credibility of the appellant's denials were weakened by his refusal to give oral evidence to the Tribunal. Fifthly, it was submitted that the Tribunal had failed to address in its determination the material relied upon by the Secretary of State (at Annex Y). Further, the Tribunal had erred in stating that “the evidence upon which the respondent relies for corroboration is either inadmissible or, if admissible, questions arise as to its translation, or it has been the subject of denial by the appellant”. None of that was true of the material at Annex Y. 22. In oral submissions Miss Giovanetti submitted that in effect the FTT had taken an over-formalistic approach to the admissibility of evidence and that was an error of law. She referred us to
- DECISION AND REASONS
- The Law
- Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Pushpanathan v Canada, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Al-Sirri
- R (on the application of JS) (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Tadic
- KJ (Sri Lanka) v SSHD
- the Evidence
- Upper Tribunal
- Before
- Between
- Appellant
- Representation
- DETERMINATION AND REASONS
- Grounds of Appeal
- Al-Sirri v Secretary of State
- The FTT’s Approach
- Submissions for Secretary of State
- Submissions for the Appellant
- Decision on Ground 1 – Standard of proof
- AH (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Ground 2
- Youssef v Foreign Secretary
- MN (Somalia) v Secretary of State
- Decision on Ground 2
- Further Procedure
- DIRECTIONS
