header-logo header-logo

02 August 2012
Issue: 7525 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Stand up for your rights

Supreme Court extends HJ (Iran) principle to political asylum seekers

Asylum can be granted to a person who does not hold a political belief where this could lead to persecution, the Supreme Court has ruled in a case that potentially affects thousands of Zimbabwean refugees.

In KM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38, seven justices considered whether asylum seekers without any particular political opinions should be required to lie and feign support for the Zanu-pf regime of President Robert Mugabe in order to avoid persecution.

The appellant, KM’s son, had previously been granted asylum in the UK on the grounds he was a sympathiser of the opposing party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and feared for his life from the Zanu-pf militia.

The secretary of state argued that KM could avoid persecution by lying about his views and pretending to support Mugabe.

However, the court unanimously allowed KM’s appeal to stay in the UK, and found that the HJ (Iran) principle, which concerns sexual orientation, also applies to asylum seekers who fear persecution due to a lack of political belief. In HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 AC 596, it was held that a gay man cannot be expected to conceal his sexual identity in order to avoid persecution.

Delivering judgment in KM, Lord Dyson noted that the main risk of persecution lay in the activities of militia gangs and war veterans at roadblocks who ask people to produce a Zanu-pf card or sing the latest campaign songs. Inability to do so could result in “violence, murder, destruction, rape and displacement”.

“The Convention affords no less protection to the right to express political opinion openly than it does to the right to live openly as a homosexual,” he said.

“The Convention reasons reflect characteristics or statuses which either the individual cannot change or cannot be expected to change because they are so closely linked to his identity or are an expression of fundamental rights.”

James Howard, partner at Blakemores, who represented KM, says: “After a lengthy legal challenge, the Supreme Court has recognised the importance of protecting the freedoms of both holding and not holding political opinions. This judgment re-enforces the HJ (Iran) principle and will have widespread application. It brings further force to those fundamental freedoms that are protected by the Refugee Convention and international law.”

Issue: 7525 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll