According to the summary provided by the Supreme Court:

"An asylum seeker from Syria, who initially met the requirements for recognition as a refugee in section 28 subsection 1 of the Immigration Act, was excluded from refugee status by the immigration authorities under section 31 subsection 1 (b). As a conscript soldier in Syria in the spring of 2011, he had been ordered to participate in house searches where opposition figures were arrested and handed over to the security forces. Those arrested were later subjected to torture and homicide. He was aware of this. The Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeal, found that the question of whether section 31 (b) of the Immigration Act, see Article 1F (b) of the Refugee Convention has been violated, must be assessed in accordance with international standards, including the Refugee Convention and guidelines of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and not the law of the country of refuge. Reference was made to the wording and considerations of purpose. The Supreme Court further concluded, unlike the Court of Appeal, that the relevant participation in the arrest and surrender of persons who risked being subjected to torture and homicide was objectively to be regarded as complicity under Article 1F (b) of the Refugee Convention. It was not a condition that the act of complicity had resulted in a difference in the main act, as the Court of Appeal had assumed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside."