ALEX MUKASA v Secretary of State for the Home Department/

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
Judgment Date20 December 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] EWCA Civ 1600
Docket NumberC5/2005/2022
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date20 December 2005

[2005] EWCA Civ 1600

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

(MR SL BATISTE)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

Before

Lord Justice Carnwath

C5/2005/2022

Alex Mukasa
Applicant/Appellant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Respondent/Respondent

MS SHAZJA KHAN (instructed by Messrs Parker Rhodes, 14 & 22 Moorgate Street, Rotherham S60 2DA) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED

LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
1

This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Senior Immigration Judge, Mr Batiste, on 20th July 2005. He dismissed the appellant's appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing asylum.

2

His case was that he had lived in Kampala in northern Uganda and that he had been the victim of attacks by a group called the Lord's Resistance Army and had been taken into captivity by them. He says that he had been forced to do various demeaning types of work and that also there had been various raids, in which the captives had been given weapons to use in the event of fighting. He was able to escape eventually but then discovered from his friends that he had been identified by the authorities as linked to the rebels and that accordingly he needed to escape. Eventually he left the country and came here.

3

The only point which is raised in substance, although it is put in different ways, is that the Adjudicator failed to take account of a significant part of the evidence. The Adjudicator had not accepted the account of what had happened and did not accept the credibility of the appellant. He referred to a number of matters which he said went against his credibility but, in a part of that passage, he said this:

"The authorities, if they were aware of him at all, would have been aware that he was kidnapped by the LRA along with many others in the raid on Katakwi. On his own account he was not personally involved in fighting during any of the raids, though he was with a group of rebels who did fight on many occasions. He deliberately carried a stick rather than a weapon to mark himself out as a non-combatant. Even on the low standard of proof applicable, I accept Mr Richardson's submission that it is implausible that the Appellant would have been identified by the authorities as a rebel combatant to the extent that they would have taken such a focused adverse interest in him, involving the publication of extensive photographs on posters in Katakwe and Kampala, and repeated visits to his home in Kampala."

He also accepted the submission by Mr Richardson, who had appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State, that there were doubts about the credibility of the account of his escape. In the conclusion he said that, on the evidence as a whole, the core account lacked credibility.

4

The point which it is said was overlooked was set out in the application for permission to appeal. That is based on the note of Ms...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2012-11-13, [2012] UKUT 389 (IAC) (MN and others (Ahmadis – country conditions – risk))
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 13 November 2012
    ...Mr Malik relied on the observations in Shah v Islam [1999] UKHL 20 as well as in Sepet v SSHD [2003] UKHL 15 and Amare v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 1600. In particular risk to the latter Laws LJ “The Convention is not there to safeguard or protect potentially affected persons from having to live ......
  • HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT (Cameroon) v Same
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 10 March 2009
    ...an applicant can expect on return and cannot, in my view, be ignored when considering that issue. 33 In Amare v Secretary of State [2005] EWCA Civ 1600 Laws LJ, with whom Mummery LJ and Wall LJ agreed, stated, at paragraph 31: “The Convention is not there to safeguard or protect potentially......
  • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2009-09-09, [2009] UKAIT 36 (MK (Lesbians))
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
    • 9 September 2009
    ...it' – has been adopted in a number of recent authorities including Z [Z v SSHD 2005 Imm AR 75] (at paragraph 12) and Amare v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 1600, paragraph 27, and RG (Colombia) v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 57, paragraph The Court of Appeal in XY (Iran) commented on the determination in HJ ......
  • MI (Pakistan) and MF (Venezuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 June 2014
    ...Cases referred to: AW (sufficiency of protection) Pakistan [2011] UKUT 31 (IAC) Amare v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK [2005] EWCA Civ 1600; [2006] Imm AR 217 Baballah v AshcroftECAS 376 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) Demirkaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1999] E......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT