General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

The Concealment Controversy An IntroductionIn 2010 the United Kingdom Supreme Court passed an important judgment for refugee law doctrine. The case of HJ and HT concerned two gay men, from Iran and Cameroon respectively, who claimed asylum based on their sexual orientation. The intention of the judgment was to settle a doctrinal dispute that had been lingering for many years: the question of 'discretion' reasoning. The Court had to decide whether claims to international protection could be denied on the basis that claimants could reasonably be required to behave 'discreetly' upon return to their country of origin in order to avoid persecution. The UK Supreme Court ruled that any such behaviour modification cannot be required, reasonably or otherwise, of a claimant. The unanimous decision also purported to provide clear guidance to judges and decision-makers on how the claimant's future behaviour should be assessed in refugee status determinations. 1 But rather than providing a final answer, the UK Supreme Court's judgment inspired a fierce debate among refugee law scholars on the role of a claimant's acts, identity and rights. 2 James Hathaway and Jason Pobjoy prominently and severely criticised the judgment in HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) as well as the previous Australian High Court judgment in S395, 3 upon which the UK Supreme Court 1 HJ (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v.