Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of the judgment?
- What was the background?
- What did the Supreme Court decide?
Article summary
Immigration analysis: Colin Yeo, barrister at Garden Court Chambers, examines the Supreme Court’s decision in KV (Sri Lanka) v SSHD to allow an asylum seeker’s appeal against a finding that—despite a medical expert’s evidence to the contrary—the scars on the appellant’s body were inflicted on him by another person at his request and were not caused, as he claimed, by torture inflicted on him by Sri Lankan Government forces.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial