If the Home Office has refused your application on human rights grounds, or you’re preparing to appeal a decision, you’ve probably heard your solicitor mention “the standard of proof” more than once. It sounds technical, and in a sense it is — but it also happens to be one of the most important ideas in your entire case, and one that too few applicants really understand before they walk into a tribunal.
At the centre of that standard sits a case called Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department. It doesn’t get much attention outside legal circles, yet it quietly shapes how every immigration judge in the country approaches human rights and asylum appeals. Understanding it won’t win your case on its own, but it will help you see why certain evidence gets weighed the way it does, and why a refusal doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the road.
This guide, from Nejat Immigration Ltd, explains what a human rights appeal actually involves, what the Karanakaran approach means in plain English, and why it matters if you’re building a case around Article 3 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
What Is a Human Rights Appeal in the UK Immigration System?
When the Home Office refuses an application — whether that’s a visa, an asylum claim, or a request to remain in the UK — there’s often a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). One of the main grounds available is that removing you from the UK would breach your human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
In practice, this usually comes down to two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:
- Article 3 — protection from torture, and from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
- Article 8 — the right to respect for private and family life.
An appeal on these grounds asks the tribunal to look past the immigration rules for a moment and ask a more fundamental question: would sending this person back genuinely put them at risk, or tear apart a family life that the law is meant to protect?
That question can’t be answered without first working out what actually happened, and what’s likely to happen if someone is returned. Which brings us to the harder problem underneath all of this: how certain does a judge need to be before they accept your account of events?
Why the Standard of Proof Is the Real Battleground
In most civil cases, a judge decides what happened using the “balance of probabilities” — in other words, whichever version of events is more likely than not. That standard makes sense for a contract dispute. It makes far less sense when someone is describing persecution, detention, or violence they suffered in another country, often with no paperwork, no witnesses, and understandable gaps in their memory.
This is exactly the problem the courts wrestled with in the late 1990s, and it’s why Sivakumaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1988] AC 958 and later Karanakaran v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] EWCA Civ 11 matter so much.
Sivakumaran established that when a decision-maker is assessing future risk — what might happen if someone is sent back — they only need to find a “reasonable degree of likelihood,” not near-certainty. That’s a lower bar than “balance of probabilities,” and deliberately so, because human rights protection shouldn’t hinge on an applicant proving the future with total certainty.
Karanakaran went a step further. The Court of Appeal held that this same lower standard should apply not just to predicting the future, but to evidence about past and present facts as well — the events an applicant says already happened to them. Lord Justice Brooke’s reasoning was straightforward: forcing decision-makers to first “prove” the past on the strict balance of probabilities, and only then apply a lower standard to the future, made little sense when the two questions are so closely tied together in practice.
What the Karanakaran Approach Actually Means for Your Case
In plain terms, Karanakaran tells decision-makers not to dismiss a piece of evidence just because they’re not fully convinced it happened. Instead, they’re expected to weigh everything — including evidence they’re uncertain about — and ask whether, taken as a whole, there’s a reasonable degree of likelihood that the applicant faces a real risk.
This has a few practical consequences worth understanding if you’re preparing an appeal:
Uncorroborated evidence isn’t automatically worthless. If you can’t produce a police report or a medical file from a country where such documents are difficult or dangerous to obtain, that gap doesn’t sink your case on its own. Judges are expected to consider your account alongside country evidence and any supporting material you do have.
Doubt doesn’t mean rejection. A judge might not be certain that a specific incident happened exactly as described, and Karanakaran says that’s fine — the question isn’t “am I certain this happened,” but “does the overall picture show a real risk.”
The evidence still has to add up. None of this lowers the bar to the point where any claim succeeds automatically. Inconsistent accounts, implausible details, or evidence that contradicts reliable country information will still count against an appeal. Karanakaran changes how evidence is weighed, not whether it needs to be credible in the first place.
Common Mistakes People Make in Human Rights Appeals
Having reviewed many cases over the years, a few recurring issues tend to weaken otherwise strong appeals:
- Treating a lack of documents as fatal. Applicants sometimes assume that without formal proof, their account won’t be believed — and give up on evidence they do have as a result.
- Focusing only on the refusal letter. A Home Office refusal sets out its reasoning, but a successful appeal usually needs fresh, organised evidence addressing those specific points, not just a rebuttal of the letter’s tone.
- Underestimating country evidence. Up-to-date, credible country background reports often do more to support a claim than personal testimony alone.
- Leaving preparation too late. Tribunal timelines move quickly once an appeal is lodged, and gathering medical, psychological, or country evidence takes time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Karanakaran mean I don’t need evidence for my appeal?
No. It means the tribunal should weigh the evidence you do have — including evidence that’s uncertain or hard to corroborate — rather than requiring proof on the strict balance of probabilities. Strong, well-organised evidence still makes a significant difference to the outcome.
Does this apply to both asylum claims and human rights appeals?
Yes. Karanakaran is most often cited in asylum cases, but the same reasonable-degree-of-likelihood standard has been applied consistently to human rights claims under Articles 3 and 8, since both involve assessing risk on return.
What happens if my human rights appeal is refused?
Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, but this isn’t automatic and strict deadlines apply. It’s worth having your case reviewed quickly to understand whether there are grounds to challenge the decision.
Can new evidence be submitted after a refusal?
Sometimes, though the rules around when and how new evidence can be introduced are strict. Speaking with an adviser as soon as possible after a refusal gives you the best chance of using any new evidence effectively.
How Nejat Immigration Ltd Can Help
Human rights appeals are rarely straightforward, and the legal reasoning behind them — including cases like Karanakaran — can be difficult to apply to a real situation without experience in how tribunals actually approach evidence.
At Nejat Immigration Ltd, we help clients across the UK and Iran prepare and present human rights and asylum appeals, from gathering the right supporting evidence to representing your case in front of the tribunal. If you’ve received a refusal or you’re concerned about an upcoming appeal, our team can talk through your circumstances and what your options look like.
Contact Nejat Immigration Ltd
Tehran Office: (021-88602840) / (021-88614510)
UK Office: (00441213395171)
UK WhatsApp: (00447821206730)
Website: https://www.nejat.uk
Please note: This article provides general information about UK immigration law and does not constitute legal advice or guarantee any particular outcome. Every case depends on its own facts — always seek advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
Official Sources and Further Reading