to where
was he driven? In response, the best he could manage was “a different location”. He was unable to identify any landmarks of any kind, the area in general terms, the district or the street name. He was unable to provide any physical description of the building in question or its surroundings. He could not estimate the journey time. His explanation was that he was busy working in the back seat of the vehicle. (30) In this context, it is appropriate to highlight the Appellant’s evidence concerning events at Heathrow Airport on 14 October 2014 (to which we shall return). The Appellant testified that, following his detention, he telephoned his chauffeur “to find out where he took me for the first test”: the chauffeur was unable to tell him
- Anonymity
- Introduction
- R (Gazi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ETS – Judicial Review)
- SM and Qadir v SSHD (ETS – Evidence – Burden of Proof)
- speaking
- SM and Qadir
- The Issues
- The Expert Evidence
- could
- uploading
- The Appellant’s Case
- several
- to where
- anything
- The Main Factual Issues: Findings And Conclusions
- general
- specific
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shehzad and Chowdhury
- apparently
- other
- Decision and Disposal
- Date:
- Ruling No 1
- APPENDIX 2. Ruling No 2
- Harris
- APPENDIX 3. Ruling No 3