- BY Colin Yeo
Another unsuccessful Legacy case
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
In R (on the application of Bah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 518 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal finds that even though the applicant had received a letter stating that the Home Office “aimed” to resolve cases by July 2011, this did not amount to an unambiguous promise because the letter went on to imply that some cases might not be. You can get a flavour of the reasoning from paragraph 42:
I do not accept that the words: ‘your’, ‘will’, ‘be’ and ‘deadline’ made this letter a letter by which a specific promise was given to review the case by July 2011.
Signing in blood with God as an actual manifest witness probably wouldn’t have worked either. For further reading on The Legacy see earlier post: Legacy cases “laid to rest” by Court of Appeal.
SHARE
