header-logo header-logo

03 August 2012
Issue: 7525 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Immigration

RT (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; KM (Zimbabwe) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38, [2012] All ER (D) 251 (Jul)

It was well-established that there were no hierarchies of protection among the reasons for persecution given by the European Convention on Human Rights, and the “well-founded fear of persecution” test set out in the Convention did not change according to which Convention reason was engaged. On the case law, Art 9 of the Convention protected the rights of both religious believers and unbelievers. There was no basis in principle for treating the right to hold and not to hold political beliefs any differently. Article 10 provided that everyone had the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions: that had to include the freedom not to hold opinions. Although much of the case law dealt with religious beliefs, there was no basis for treating the right to hold and not hold political views differently from religious ones. Furthermore, there was no distinction to be

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll