![[2024] UKUT 00142 (IAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AioYBzS.png){kind=logo}
Whether the evidence adduced by the SSHD is sufficient to meet the evidential burden
Whether the evidence adduced by the SSHD is sufficient to meet the evidential burden
The difficulty with the use of the phrase “evidential burden” was addressed in DK and RK. In DK and RK, the Tribunal referred, by analogy, to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder. The burden of negating the defence rests upon the prosecution, but before that burden arises, there must be evidence that could raise a prima facie case of provocation. The use of the phrase ‘evidential burden’ is unhelpful in this context because here, the burden of proof rests with the Secretary of State and the issue for the Tribunal is simply whether that burden is discharged.
As the Tribunal did in DK and RK, we have considered whether the evidence that is now available to us, including, in particular, evidence from Richard Shury and Christopher Stanbury is such that, taken at its highest, it could not lead to us, or judge’s faced with such appeals, to conclude that the appellant has a case to answer.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Agreed Facts
- The Issues
- Our Approach
- The Appellants’ case in summary
- TOEIC Testing
- Types of toeic fraud
- DK & RK (ETS: SSHD evidence; proof) India [2022] UKUT 00112 IAC
- The correct approach to the standard of proof where fraud is alleged
- Whether the evidence adduced by the SSHD is sufficient to meet the evidential burden
- Inherent Probability and Improbability
- The General Evidence of Fraud
- ETS
- Expert Evidence
- London College of Social Studies (“LCSS”)
- correct approach that a Tribunal should take to assessing whether, where there is a case to answer, the respondent’s evidence is to be preferred to that of an individual who denies fraud
- These Appeals
- Conclusions