ewan) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2013] EWHC 2727 (Admin) and [2014] 1 WLR 1959 , the Complainant challenged a decision by the competent authority to the effect that while he may have been, historically, a victim of trafficking, he was no longer so, with the result that the Secretary of State had no legal obligations to provide protection or assistance. The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State’s Guidance was incompatible with the Trafficking Convention, due to a misinterpretation of the latter. (33)
At this juncture we record that in developing their arguments Ms Cronin and Ms Poyn o r on behalf of the Appellants relied on the principle enunciated in
- ntroduction
- Error of Law
- Trafficking Decision
- The Asylum Refusal Decision
- documentary
- Decision of the FtT
- if he was a victim of trafficking this was very much at the lower end of the spectrum.
- I find as a fact that he ceased to be in a situation which might have amounted to being a victim of trafficking following his arrest in September 2012.
- Framework of this appeal
- Factual Matrix
- The Appellant’s family
- Preserved Findings
- oubt
- “ Assessment of facts and circumstances
- Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Russia
- United Kingdom
- R v SK
- Attorney General’s Reference Nos 37, 38 and 65 of 2010
- Connors and Others
- France
- ewan) v
- R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
- Trafficking Issues in the IAC Tribunals
- Section 82, 2002 Act
- Section 84, 2002 Act
- Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith
- Afghanistan
- Secretary of
- Abdi
- Rantsev
- consider
- Ullah
- Amatewan
- Atamewan
- to Mogadishu) Somalia
- DECISION
- Bernard McCloskey
- Date:
- CG [2014] UKUT 00442 (IAC), [23] – [27]
- National Justice CIA Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Company Limited
- Vernon v Bosley (No 2)
- Stevens v Gullis
- Lucas v Barking Hospitals NHS Trust
- Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department