BP (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice McFarlane,Lady Justice Rafferty |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 635 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5 2012 2594 |
| Date | 28 April 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 635
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Rafferty
Lady Justice McFarlane
Case No: C5 2012 2594
Mr Alasdair Mackenzie (Instructed by Birnberg, Pierce & Partners) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Ms Kerry Bretheron (instructed by Government Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an application for permission to appeal brought by an applicant who has been seeking asylum in this jurisdiction since April 2008. The determination which is the target of the application in fact was that of Upper Tribunal Judge Waumsley, given on 19 June 2012, nearly three years ago. It has taken a great deal of time for this application to be considered at an oral hearing, largely because of an agreed need to wait for further country guidance to be given with respect to Sri Lanka, the country from whom the applicant originally comes. That guidance has now been given by the decision of this court in the case of MP & NT [2014] EWCA Civ. 829.
At an earlier stage, Davis LJ refused permission to appeal on paper on 26 February 2013 on the basis that the position appealed against was within its own context in line with the country guidance and otherwise unremarkable. Today, my Lady and I have heard a renewed application for permission made by Mr Alasdair Mackenzie who appears for the applicant and that application, by directions by this court, was undertaken at an on notice hearing to the Home Secretary and we have benefited from the submissions of Ms Kerry Bretherton in response.
In short terms, the history of this matter can be set out in the compass of one paragraph. The applicant is a young man who originates from the Tamil area of Sri Lanka. The facts upon which the Tribunal process has been based for some hearings now are accepted to be based on his own account. He explains how he was compelled to undertake basic training work with LTTE, the Tamil Tigers, in the earlier part of 2007. He tried to avoid being drawn further into their operation but was mistreated and forced for a period to serve in a supportive capacity in a conflict zone but, at the end of 2007, he managed to escape and get to Colombo where his mother lived. However, he was required to register with the authorities in Colombo on arrival, that triggered notice to the authorities of his presence, he was arrested, interrogated and tortured.
The summary of the applicant's evidence at an earlier Tribunal hearing was accepted as the factual basis and the key part reads as follows:
"His mother secured his release on payment of a large bribe. The Appellant was not charged with any offence but was required to report. After his release he was approached separately by EPDP and Pillayan group members [pro-government forces] seeking his assistance, which he declined. The Appellant left Sri Lanka with the help of an agent and claimed asylum in the United Kingdom on 28 April 2008, 3 days after his arrival. His mother and one of his brothers were questioned by the police in Colombo afterwards but were released without charge."
At an earlier Tribunal hearing in 2010, designated Immigration Judge Manuel accepted that evidence on the basis that I have just set out.
I have made reference to earlier proceedings and it is not necessary in this short judgment to set them out, but this is a case which has been up and down the Tribunal process and, indeed, on application to this court at earlier stages. The process undertaken by Upper Tribunal Judge Waumsley in June 2012 was to undertake, again, the risk assessment to the applicant if he were required to return to Sri Lanka and that assessment had to be undertaken on the factual basis that I have described. The judge therefore did not hear any fresh oral evidence, the case was conducted entirely on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2017-03-22, AA/10610/2015
...Judge erred by not following the guidance in AK (Failure to assess witnesses’ evidence) Tukey [2004] UKIAT 00230 and BP (Sri Lanka) [2015] EWCA Civ 635. My Syed-Ali further submitted that the Judge erred by placing too much weight on the appellant not being on the watch list because the Cou......