Jenny Lanigan appears pro bono for vulnerable appellant in the Upper Tribunal
The case involved MK, a national of Guinea, who had brought an asylum claim alongside claims under Articles 3 and 8. His Article 3 claim centred on his serious physical and mental health conditions, including a significant risk of suicide, combined with the limited availability and prohibitive cost of appropriate medical treatment in Guinea.
Despite facing considerable barriers including illiteracy and a language barrier alongside his health problems, MK represented himself before the First-tier Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed on all grounds.
Through Advocate, Jenny assisted MK on a pro bono basis in pursuing his appeal to the Upper Tribunal. She successfully argued that the First-tier Tribunal Judge had made an error of law when dismissing MK’s Article 3 claim, in light of the Supreme Court’s guidance in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The judge’s reasoning was found to be inadequate, as it failed to properly explain how the key issues in the case had been resolved, most notably whether MK met the threshold of being a “seriously ill person” in light of the medical evidence.
The Upper Tribunal agreed with Jenny’s submissions and set aside the decision. The Upper Tribunal also accepted her argument that the case should be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for a fresh hearing rather than being retained by the Upper Tribunal. This was especially significant given MK’s vulnerabilities.
Further information
For more information from the public-law team, contact clerks@36public.co.uk
Involving Jennifer Lanigan
