Connect with us


R (on the application of BG) v London Borough of Hackney (social media; candour; disclosure) [2022] UKUT 00338 (IAC)

Title R (on the application of BG) v London Borough of Hackney (social media; candour; disclosure) [2022] UKUT 00338 (IAC)
Publisher United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Publication Date 27 October 2022
Country Afghanistan | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Topics Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports)
Cite as R (on the application of BG) v London Borough of Hackney (social media; candour; disclosure) [2022] UKUT 00338 (IAC) , United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 27 October 2022, available at:,GBR_UTIAC,63b452e94.html [accessed 14 March 2023]
Comments (1) The duty of candour which applies in judicial review proceedings obliges the parties to disclose all material facts, including those which are or appear to be adverse to his case. (2) That duty also obliges the parties to make reasonable enquiries to identify such facts, so as to ensure that the judge dealing with the application has the full picture. (3) In practice, the duty of candour obliges an applicant’s legal representatives in Age Assessment Judicial Review proceedings to: (i) Ascertain what social media and other methods of communication are used by the applicant; (ii) Consider the relevant accounts with a view to ascertaining whether they contain any material which potentially undermines the applicant’s case; and (iii) Disclose any material which might be relevant to the case, including any material adverse to the applicant. (4) The duty is a self-policing one, but the Upper Tribunal might legitimately require a ‘disclosure statement’ from an applicant’s solicitor, confirming that the applicant has disclosed to them the details of any social media accounts that they hold and that the solicitor in question has undertaken a reasonable and proportionate search of those accounts in order to ensure that all documents relevant to the issues in the case have been disclosed. (5) When the Upper Tribunal considers an application for specific disclosure, it will be a highly material consideration that the applicant’s solicitor has made such a disclosure statement. (6) In order for the Upper Tribunal to make an order for specific disclosure, it is necessary for there to have been an application for the same; such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. Instead, the test will always be whether, in the given case, disclosure appears to be necessary in order to resolve the matter fairly and justly. (7) An order for specific disclosure of material from an applicant’s social media accounts is likely to represent an interference with 2 their private life and it is necessary to consider the breadth of the disclosure required in order to decide whether a less intrusive measure might suffice.
Disclaimer This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

Link:, dated January 3, 2023 3:08 pm

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar