Our client, PK is now raising funds for his application to the Upper-Tribunal. His initial application was refused by the Home Office. However, following a successful appeal, he now has another hearing at the end of March after the case was remitted to the Upper-Tribunal.
The client is launching this legal action to set a new precedent that would help other people in a similar situation.
The funds would be delegated to cover the legal expenses, including senior barrister QC (queen’s council), who is instructed in the matter to present the client in the Upper-Tribunal.
Ultimately, he needs to raise £30,000, which will cover the barrister fees of senior barrister QC and junior barrister, who are already instructed on the case and lead the previous successful appeal.
You can help PK by donating here.
You can read more about the case below:
Our client, PK, entered the UK unlawfully in 2013 and claimed asylum in 2014 upon facing deportation.
However, numerous asylum claims have been rejected, the call-up notices received were considered fraudulent documents, and PK faced removal.
PK appealed to the First-tier Tribunal which considered two main issues:
Could the military service in Ukraine involve acts contrary to the basic rules of human conduct defined by international law?
If the appellant was to receive a prison sentence, would the conditions there breach Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights?
The Tribunal considered such acts to be unlikely, but not impossible, and found that the most likely punishment for draft evasion in Ukraine would be fine. The appeal was therefore dismissed, as the harm feared would not be sufficiently serious to breach Article 3 of the ECHR.
The main question we raised in the Court of Appeal was whether punishment for draft evasion must reach minimum severity in order for a draft evader to be considered a refugee. We also argued there is an inconsistency between the Upper Tribunal and the Secretary of State definition of “minimum severity”.
The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the Upper Tribunal.
Sterling Law instructed Anthony Metzer QC and Julian Norman to represent the client.
You can read the full article here.