![]() Transitional arrangementsįor the purposes of the transitional arrangements only, individuals who sought to register an asylum claim before the commencement date of 28 June 2022 but were provided with an appointment to attend a designated place to register their asylum application on or after 28 June will be considered to have ‘made an asylum claim’ before the commencement date but only if they attend their scheduled appointment (or, in the event that it is cancelled or rescheduled by the Home Office, the rescheduled appointment). If the claimant does not need protection you must consider any human rights issues or exceptional circumstances by referring to guidance on Family Life and Discretionary Leave. There is also separate guidance on eligibility for Humanitarian Protection. There is separate Assessing credibility and refugee status guidance for asylum claims made before 28 June 2022 or asylum claims that need to be considered as if they had claimed asylum before 28 June 2022 under Transitional arrangements. This guidance is version 13.0 and it explains how to consider valid asylum claims that were made on or after 28 June 2022 when the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (the ‘2022 Act’) came into force in accordance with the UK’s obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol (the Refugee Convention), and, in particular, how to assess the credibility of the claim. They affect the weight which the court should give to that evidence because they concern the extent to which the court can be sure that the contents of the witness statement truthfully reflect the evidence of non-English speaking witnesses.Ī clear illustration of the importance of complying with the new rules.Version 13.0 About this guidance Relevance of the date that the asylum claim was made The breaches of the CPR and its Practice Directions referred to above are not mere technical breaches. I consider the failings under PD 32 and 22 to be significant failings in this case which significantly affect the weight that I should give to these written statements which have not been tested in cross-examination. The statements had been read to the witnesses’ in their own language, but the judge was not impressed: The statements were in English and the statements of truth were also in English. Two statements had been provided from witnesses who did not speak English. ![]() Mr Diamond’s case was ultimately undermined by the fact that his mother had apparently sent a letter to the Home Office as part of an earlier application for entry clearance which contradicted his account, but Mr Justice Calver also applied the new rules on witness statements. Hence the relevance of the Civil Procedure Rules. On an application for judicial review, the court reviews the claimant’s nationality as a matter of “precedent fact” in other words, it assesses the evidence like it would in a civil claim. Mr Diamond’s entitlement to the passport depended on whether he was born before or after his father acquired British nationality. The Diamond case was a challenge to the Home Office’s decision to revoke and refuse to renew the claimant’s British passport. The rules are intended to remove the risk of witnesses signing witness statements that do not reflect what they will actually say and without understanding the significance of the statement of truth. Practice Direction 32 Para 18.1 also states that witness statements should be in the witness’s own intended words. The party relying on the witness statement must file a certified English translation of the statement (PD 32 Para 23.2).The statement of truth must be in the witness’s own language (PD 22 Para 2.4).The witness statement must be drafted in the witness’s own language rather than English (PD 32 Para 19.1(8)).They impose several requirements on witness statements filed by non-English speakers: The new rules are contained in CPR Practice Directions 22 and 32. The new rules are of obvious interest to immigration lawyers and Diamond v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWHC 3313 (Admin) is an early example of the consequences of non-compliance. In April 2020, the Civil Procedure Rules were updated with significant changes made to the rules about witness statements filed by non-English speakers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |