GN (IRAN) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Maurice Kay,Lord Justice Lawrence Collins,Sir Paul Kennedy |
| Judgment Date | 14 January 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 112 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2007/1556 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 112
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Maurice Kay,
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins and
Sir Paul Kennedy
Case No: C5/2007/1556
[AIT No. AA/047779/2005]
Miss J Fisher (instructed by Mitre House Chambers) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr A Henshaw (instructed by Brick Court Chambers) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The appellant is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in this country on 25 April 2005 and claimed asylum. His application was refused by the Secretary of State. He appealed to an immigration judge who dismissed his appeal on 3 August 2005. There was then an application for reconsideration, which resulted finally in a second stage reconsideration determination, promulgated on 27 April 2007. Again, the appellant was unsuccessful.
The factual background can be summarised as follows: the appellant and his parents and sisters lived in Tehran. Indeed, the other members of the family still live there. He did Iranian military service. In due course he operated a gym which became a very successful business with some five hundred members, about a hundred of whom were women. The appellant has never been supportive of the regime in Iran, but nor has he involved himself in any political activities. Whilst running the gym he formed relationships with female members who, on his evidence, were always widows. From time to time he would give advice to female members about diet and exercise routines. He denies that he ever became involved with any married women, despite the fact that some had made advances towards him. His problems began in the summer of 2001 when the religious (as opposed to the civilian) police came to the gym. The appellant was handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to a detention centre. He was interrogated and accused of having had an affair with a married woman: a member of the gym. He was severely beaten, kicked, punched and slapped. He was hit on the head with a rifle butt. However, he maintained his denial of the alleged relationship.
That detention lasted some two weeks, in the course of which he was tortured on five occasions. At the end of that detention he was transferred to a prison in Tehran where he was put in solitary confinement for a week. He was accused falsely of being involved with the Mujahadeen. He was then detained for a further four months without charge, but his release was eventually procured when his father paid a bribe and handed over the deeds to the family home. The appellant signed an undertaking, promising not to become involved in politics, and was required to report to the local police station on a monthly basis for six months. He duly did so without incident. At the end of the six months the house deeds were returned, and he resumed running the gym which, in the meantime, had been looked after by his father and a friend. Thereafter he was more circumspect and did not became involved with any female members.
He continued to receive regular visits from the religious police, who complained that the music played in the gym was insufficiently Islamic, and further complained about posters and photographs on the walls depicting scantily dressed persons engaged in exercise. The religious police also sought bribes but he refused to pay any. In April 2005, two officers from the religious police came again and accused him of having an affair with a married woman. There was an incident in the course of which the appellant lost his temper and shouted remarks derogatory of Islam. There was a fracas, but the appellant was able to run away. He went to a friend's home. His own home was raided the following morning but nothing was found. It was those events which precipitated his departure from Iran and his journey via Turkey to the United Kingdom. Part of his case before the AIT was that he had become friendly with members of the Roman Catholic Church in this country and had become interested in the Christian religion. He maintained that he was considering conversion to Christianity but had not yet done so. His fundamental case was and is that, if returned to Iran, he would be mistreated to a level which would involve a breach at least of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because of the false allegation that he had had an adulterous affair with a married woman, and also because of his interest in Christianity.
It is not necessary to say anymore about that latter aspect of the case because the AIT made findings which did not support the totality of his religious case and no appeal has been brought in relation to that aspect of the matter. The case before us is concerned entirely with Article 3 and what might happen to the appellant on a forced return to Iran. Although at this stage it is appropriate to set out the central findings of the AIT, it is pertinent that the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the appellant on all matters except the absolute genuineness of his current interest in Christianity. It certainly accepted his factual account of what had happened between 2001 and 2005 at the gym at the hands of the religious police and during the periods of detention to which I have referred. The conclusion of the tribunal is expressed first in this passage, at paragraph 49 of the determination:
“We therefore find the Appellant was the owner of a gym in Tehran which had a large membership, one quarter of which was female. We find that he was arrested, detained and tortured in 2001 and released upon payment of a bribe and subject to conditions. We find that his continued operation of the gym attracted the interest of the religious authorities from his release until 2005. We find that he was again visited by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devon Partnership NHS Trust v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
...or 12(1). 30 Ms Morris drew our attention to two authorities. She cited M v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 112, [26], for the proposition that what was required by way of personal examination was a matter for the professional judgment of the clini......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2013-07-05, AA017242012
...on arrival back in Iran where there were other factors which make them stand out, such as a political profile. In GN (Iran) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 112 the Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal that the objective material demonstrated that neither illegal departure nor asylum failure woul......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-12-21, AA/00208/2014
...risk on arrival back in Iran where there were other factors which make them stand out, such as a political profile. In GN (Iran) v SSHD 2008 EWCA Civ 112 the Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal that the objective material demonstrated that neither illegal departure nor asylum failure w......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2016-01-27, AA/03623/2015
...not feel that such would give rise to a violation of the Convention if an applicant were returned to the country. In GN (Iran) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 112 the Court of Appeal agreed that the evidence did not show that an illegal departure or being a failed asylum seeker would by themselves g......