MN (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Moore-Bick,Lord Justice Tomlinson,Lady Justice King |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 1601 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2013/3027 |
| Date | 09 December 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 1601
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(IMMIGRATION & ASYLUM CHAMBER)
Upper Tribunal Judge Freeman & Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Parkes
AA/02236/2013
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Lord Justice Tomlinson
and
Lady Justice King
Case No: C5/2013/3027
Ms Shivani Jegarajah (instructed by A P Solicitors) for the appellant
Mr. Mathew Gullick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the respondent
Hearing date: 13 th November 2014
This is an appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal on the grounds that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law.
The appellant is a Sri Lankan national of Tamil ethnicity, who entered this country on 17 th September 2009 on a student visa issued to him on 28 th August that year. In February 2012 he claimed asylum on the grounds that he was at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka because of his former involvement with the LTTE. He said that he had travelled to this country on a false passport.
The appellant said that on 1 st May 2009, when he was on his way home after his day's work, a visit to the mosque and a game of cricket, he was kidnapped by three men who bundled him into a van at gun point. His hands were tied and he was gagged and blindfolded. He was driven to a building where he was held for five days, during which he was tortured. After that, he was taken to an army camp where he was photographed, and his fingerprints were taken. At that stage his wallet was inspected and the contents (which included money he had collected from depositors with the bank at which he worked) were taken. He was questioned and accused of having given shelter to members of the LTTE at his home. When he denied having done so, he was slapped and told that he was lying. He was made to kneel down and was then struck on the back with a rifle butt and knocked to the ground. He then confessed to harbouring seven people whom the army said were prominent members of the LTTE. He said that they had paid him for sheltering them, but he had not known they were members of the LTTE.
The appellant said that he had been detained for about a month, during which he had been questioned and beaten with electrical cables and iron bars. He was told he was going to be killed and was driven to a place in the jungle. He was told to turn his back and expected to be shot, but he saw his father and uncle who had come to take him away. They said they had paid Rs40,000 to free him. Following his release he stayed for about seven weeks at a house belonging to one of his uncle's friends.
The Secretary of State refused the appellant's claim for asylum because she did not accept the truth of his account in a number of respects. She did not accept that the passport on which he had travelled was false and, although she accepted that he was of Sri Lankan nationality, she did not accept that he was of Tamil ethnicity. She did not accept that he had been arrested and detained, as he claimed; nor did she accept that he had been tortured by the army.
The appellant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. At the hearing he gave evidence in Tamil through an interpreter and in support of his case he relied on, among other things, a report from a doctor, Dr. Bell, working for the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, who had examined scars on his back and ankles. Photographs of the scarring were also provided to the tribunal. The scarring on the appellant's back was extensive and there was also scarring on his ankles. The doctor's conclusion was that the scars were highly consistent with the appellant's account of being suspended by a rope around the ankles and with being beaten with heavy duty electrical cables. He considered that the scars could not have been self-inflicted and indicated that the appellant had been beaten by two men. The appellant said that, having escaped captivity by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahmud's (Omar) Application for Judicial Review
...cannot begin to confirm when, where and who inflicted the injuries. In MN (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1601 [9] – [11] the Court of Appeal held that where it is impossible to say when the injuries were inflicted and an appellant’s own account of t......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2023-01-25, IA/00146/2021
...overall evidence. Consequently I do not accept that the appellant was detained and mistreated as claimed MN(Sri Lanka) v SSHD 2014 EWCA Civ 1601 [23] The medical report by Dr. Goldwyn also suggests that the appellant suffers from PTSD. I do not accept the opinion that the appellant suffers ......
-
R RB (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...case it was considered by the medical expert that the Claimant was suffering from PTSD. 29 I was referred to MN (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1601 which is not a fresh claim decision but which the Defendant relies on for its emphasis on the second part of the test. The tribunal was hel......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-07-31, AA/11669/2014
...on the medical evidence, I must consider all of the evidence in the round (Mibanga v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 367; MN (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 1601).” In his application for permission to appeal, the appellant contended, firstly, that the judge made his findings on credibility without......