The paper is divided into two sections. Section A is a report of the observations I recorded when I visited the case KM (Zimbabwe) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent): UKSC 2012/0020. The case was held on the 18th of June 2012 at the Supreme Court of Justice. It was presided over by Lady Hale and Lords Kerr, Dyson, Hope, Wilson, Clarke, and Reed. It addressed the issue on asylum claims by KM as well as the application of a decision in the HJ v SSHD case.
Basically, KM is a 54 year old Zimbabwean who wants to be awarded asylum in the UK on the claims that he would be persecuted, if he returned to Zimbabwe. He also claimed that since he ought to be awarded asylum because his son was also granted one. The Tribunal ruled that it was right for the case be remitted to a higher court.
Section B addresses the implications of the Woolf Reforms in the UK. Woolf made 3003 recommendations to transform the Civil Justice System. The main objective of the recommendations was to review the Civil Procedure Rules to make the courts justified. The changes in the system can be grouped into three main objectives. The first objective is to limit the discovery process instead of expanding it. This limits the volume of documents to be reviewed by concentrating on the most important issues. The second objective is to reduce the cost of the legal process. The Civil Procedure Rules have made explicit exceptions in awarding cost to successful parties. The third objective is case management. Cases have been categorized into the groups and time restrictions put in place to fasten the process. Despite the criticism that the reforms have taken cases away from the courts, the process has been more effective