When our paths cross again: the Supreme Court's management of related asylum and child abduction claims in G v G

Kieran Walsh; Sarah Atkins

doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12701

When our paths cross again: the Supreme Court's management of related asylum and child abduction claims in G v G

Kieran Walsh, Sarah Atkins

School of Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

80 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This case note examines how the Supreme Court approached the complex problem of overlapping legal proceedings involving asylum claims and child abduction. It analyses the purposive approach taken by the Supreme Court to the determination of how a child, who has not independently claimed asylum, should be understood to have done so, and the ramifications of this for the child's legal status in any claim for their return under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. It further seeks to address the novel approach by which the Supreme Court dealt with this problem. By formulating draft standard directions for the handling of such cases, the Court brought into focus questions about the limits of the judicial function of promoting good governance.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1245-1260
Number of pages	16
Journal	The Modern Law Review
Volume	85
Issue number	5
Early online date	21 Oct 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12701
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2022

Keywords

refugee
asylum
child abduction
Hague Convention
refoulement
dependent child
return order

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1111/1468-2230.12701

G v G
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Walsh, K. and Atkins, S. (2022), When our Paths Cross Again: The Supreme Court's Management of Related Asylum and Child Abduction Claims in G v G. The Modern Law Review, 85: 1245-1260, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12701. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited.
Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 348 KB

Cite this

@article{b8dd9d7a50ab4dfc9d8658056d5ddd0d,

title = "When our paths cross again: the Supreme Court's management of related asylum and child abduction claims in G v G",

abstract = "This case note examines how the Supreme Court approached the complex problem of overlapping legal proceedings involving asylum claims and child abduction. It analyses the purposive approach taken by the Supreme Court to the determination of how a child, who has not independently claimed asylum, should be understood to have done so, and the ramifications of this for the child's legal status in any claim for their return under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. It further seeks to address the novel approach by which the Supreme Court dealt with this problem. By formulating draft standard directions for the handling of such cases, the Court brought into focus questions about the limits of the judicial function of promoting good governance.",

keywords = "refugee, asylum, child abduction, Hague Convention, refoulement, dependent child, return order",

author = "Kieran Walsh and Sarah Atkins",

year = "2022",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12701",

language = "English",

volume = "85",

pages = "1245--1260",

journal = "The Modern Law Review",

issn = "0026-7961",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When our paths cross again

T2 - the Supreme Court's management of related asylum and child abduction claims in G v G

AU - Walsh, Kieran

AU - Atkins, Sarah

PY - 2022/9/1

Y1 - 2022/9/1

N2 - This case note examines how the Supreme Court approached the complex problem of overlapping legal proceedings involving asylum claims and child abduction. It analyses the purposive approach taken by the Supreme Court to the determination of how a child, who has not independently claimed asylum, should be understood to have done so, and the ramifications of this for the child's legal status in any claim for their return under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. It further seeks to address the novel approach by which the Supreme Court dealt with this problem. By formulating draft standard directions for the handling of such cases, the Court brought into focus questions about the limits of the judicial function of promoting good governance.

AB - This case note examines how the Supreme Court approached the complex problem of overlapping legal proceedings involving asylum claims and child abduction. It analyses the purposive approach taken by the Supreme Court to the determination of how a child, who has not independently claimed asylum, should be understood to have done so, and the ramifications of this for the child's legal status in any claim for their return under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. It further seeks to address the novel approach by which the Supreme Court dealt with this problem. By formulating draft standard directions for the handling of such cases, the Court brought into focus questions about the limits of the judicial function of promoting good governance.

KW - refugee

KW - asylum

KW - child abduction

KW - Hague Convention

KW - refoulement

KW - dependent child

KW - return order

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12701

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12701

M3 - Article

SN - 0026-7961

VL - 85

SP - 1245

EP - 1260

JO - The Modern Law Review

JF - The Modern Law Review

IS - 5

ER -

When our paths cross again: the Supreme Court's management of related asylum and child abduction claims in G v G

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this