HH (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Keene,Lord Justice Pill,Lord Justice Moore-Bick |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Civ 306 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2006/2221 |
| Date | 15 March 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Civ 306
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
[AIT No: AA/00247/2005]
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Pill
Lord Justice Keene and
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Case No: C5/2006/2221
MR D BAZINI (instructed by Messrs HCL Hanne & Co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR C BOURNE (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The appellant, a female citizen of Ethiopia, now aged 22, appeals from a decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”) dated 23 November 2005. That decision was made as the result of an order for reconsideration under section 103A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 of an Immigration Judge's decision to dismiss both her asylum appeal and her appeal under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
A few, but only a few, of the facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellant, who was born in Addis Ababa in February 1985, is a single woman found by the Immigration Judge to be an Oromo. She arrived in this country in March 2005 and claimed asylum. Her claim was based on an alleged fear of persecution in Ethiopia because she was related to two family members—her father and an uncle—who had been, she said, arrested and imprisoned for political activities there on behalf of the Oromo Liberation Front (“the OLF”).
At the heart of the case in fact was her credibility. The Immigration Judge did not accept that her father and uncle had been imprisoned for political activities and he rejected her account of having been detained and beaten by the authorities in Ethiopia. He found that the Ethiopian authorities had no adverse interest in her and his decision to dismiss her appeals was ultimately upheld by the AIT.
It is necessary to set out her account of events in a little more detail. She said that she had originally lived with her father in a small town about 45 kilometres from Addis Ababa, but from the age of 10 had been sent to live with her uncle in that city to obtain a better education. Both her father and uncle belonged to the OLF and contributed money to it. She said that they held weekly OLF meetings at her uncle's house, but she did not herself attend them; she only carried in drinks. Her evidence was that her father was first arrested in December 2004 and then released. Then in January 2005 both he and her uncle were arrested; her father first and then some time later her uncle.
According to her evidence, on 20 February 2005 she herself was arrested while out shopping. She was taken to a detention centre where she was held for some five days. During this time she was interrogated about the activities of her father and uncle and she was kicked and beaten on her back and legs. Eventually she was released on condition that she sign a piece of paper saying that she would go back and give more detailed information about the activities of her father and uncle. Upon her release, she said, she did not go home but went to stay with a friend of her uncle in Addis Ababa for two weeks before leaving for this country on 15 March 2005.
Apart from her own evidence the Immigration Judge had before him background evidence about conditions in Ethiopia, including a CIPU assessment of April 2004 and a medical report from Dr Anna Hiley, who works as a general practitioner in a specialist practice for asylum seekers and who saw and examined the appellant on 20 June 2005. The background evidence indicated and the Immigration Judge noted that the Ethiopian government did arbitrarily detain thousands of people suspected of being members of or sympathisers with the OLF. Security forces detained family members of those sought for questioning.
Much of the argument in this case turns on the medical report and it is therefore helpful to summarise Dr Hiley's evidence at this stage. Her report set out the account which she was given by the appellant, including the latter's descriptions of herself as depressed and suffering from insomnia, poor appetite and weight loss. The account included also the description of being beaten and kicked while in detention. The report by Dr Hiley then deals with what was found on examination:
“16. The types of injuries described by Miss H do not typically leave permanent scarring. She did not describe any injuries which bled but only deep bruising. It is therefore unlikely that significant diagnostic scars would be seen. However on examination I have identified the following scars:
“17. On the inside of the right thigh there is a small circular irregular and pale scar of unknown origin. On the back there are two patterns of scarring, firstly on the left upper spine over the shoulder blade there is a circular pattern of well healed scars which could be consistent with being beaten across this bony prominence. Below this to the right side of the spine there is a pattern of four smaller circular but irregular scars, it is possible that these patterns of scarring were caused by being beaten.”
In her conclusions Dr Hiley said that it was her opinion that the appellant was the victim of imprisonment and beatings in the way that she had described. The doctor went on to say this about the scarring:
“There is little physical evidence which can absolutely confirm this lady's history; however the types of injury described would not be expected to leave diagnostic scars. I would therefore not recommend any conclusion is drawn for any lack of scarring.”
In those conclusions the doctor expressed two further opinions: one, that she, the doctor, believed that the appellant was suffering from some elements of post-traumatic stress; and two, that:
“Whilst the history given today was consistently delivered it is not unusual for patients who have experienced trauma to become confused or to remember details inaccurately when they are later asked about them.”
The Immigration Judge in his consideration of the appellant's credibility was clearly concerned about her lack of knowledge of the OLF. In interview she had been unable to say what OLF stood for, who the leader was or what its aims or objectives were. He acknowledged that she was not personally involved with it or its meetings, but he said at paragraph 22 of his determination:
“I find it very difficult to reconcile the appellant's account that her closest relatives were involved with OLF and hosted regular meetings with her almost total lack of knowledge about the movement. It is hard to imagine how an Oromo living with OLF activists over a period of years in early adulthood could fail to pick up the basics about the organisation.”
The Immigration Judge then dealt with a number of alleged discrepancies in her account of events, which the Home Office presenting officer had relied on. For some of those the judge attached no weight, for reasons which he gave. However, he did attach some weight to others. Thus he noted that the appellant had given inconsistent accounts of where her father and uncle had been at the time of their arrests in January 2005, and she had not mentioned in interview signing a paper before release. He found her oral evidence about the contents of the paper to be vague and he described her as having become very evasive on the issue of her addresses in Ethiopia.
The Immigration Judge then went on to deal with the medical report. He said that he disregarded Dr Hiley's view that the appellant had been imprisoned and beaten as described because that was something he had to decide on all the evidence. He then went on at paragraph 28 to deal with the rest of the report, saying:
“She refers to the appellant suffering from some elements of PTSD and symptoms of depression. She says [that] there is little physical evidence which can absolutely confirm the history. However, she notes that the types of injury described would not be expected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MN v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...the evidence of PTSD simply because the doctor had proceeded on the basis of the appellant's account. 117 In HH (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 306 the Immigration Judge had disbelieved the appellant's account of having been detained and beaten by th......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-05-27, [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC) (KK and RS (Sur place activities, risk) (CG))
...in the light of all of the evidence, including the medical report, HH Ethiopia and the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 306. As the judge identified “there could be other obvious potential causes for the signs of anxiety, stress and depression” and that these inclu......
-
JL (Medical Reports - Credibility) China [Upper Tribunal]
...that the account given by the appellant was to be believed, the less likely it is that significant weight will be attached to it ( HH (Ethiopia) [2007] EWCA Civ 306[23]). (3) The authors of such medical reports also need to understand that what is expected of them is a critical and objectiv......
-
Ad For Judicial Review
...erred in two respects. The first is that, in considering Dr Dignon's report, she "fully considered" the case of HH (Ethiopia) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 306 (15 March 2007) which, she states: "maintained the approach of S v SSHD [2006] EWCA Civ 1153 and Mibanga v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 367 in tha......