NJ (IRAN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Carnwath:,Lord Justice Thomas,Lord Justice Lawrence Collins |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 77 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C5/2007/1095 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 January 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 77
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No. AA/07485/2006]
Lord Justice Carnwath
Lord Justice Thomas And
Lord Justice Lawrence Collins
Case No: C5/2007/1095
Mrs H Gore (instructed by Corbin & Hassan Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr S Kovats (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent..
This is an appeal from a decision of the AIT (Immigration Judge Birkby) given on 29 January 2007. The applicant is a citizen of Iran who came to this country in March 2006 and claimed asylum on the basis of fears of persecution from Iranian authorities because of her activities with women's groups in Iran. The most significant event dealt with in the evidence was a political demonstration on 8 March 2006 in Tehran where it was said demonstrators had been violently attacked and women beaten. Subsequently it was said the friends of the appellant had been arrested and detained. The appellant feared that under torture her friends would disclose her name and that she would be arrested, detained and tortured. The case came first before Immigration Judge Macdonald. He gave a decision on 22 August 2006. Although he dismissed her appeal he found her credible on a number of aspects. He said this:
“In summary I accept that the appellant was a member of a women's culture centre. I find her role was low-key and that she was not known to the authorities. I accept that she attended the International Women's Day demonstration on 8 March 2006 and that she was one of the many people struck by baton-wielding police as they broke up the demonstration. I find that the police action was intended to disperse and intimidate those at the demonstration. I am satisfied that no arrests were made at the demonstration and consequently the Appellant's fear that her friends may disclose her name to the authorities is without foundation.
41 On the basis of the objective material before me I do not consider that the Appellant is of any interest to the authorities in Iran because of her membership of the Women's Cultural Centre or her attendance at the demonstration.”
He added that on the totality of the evidence he did not consider that the conduct crossed the threshold of severity required to constitute persecution.
There was an application for reconsideration of that decision. The burden of the application was that in holding that there had not been any arrests following that event the Immigration Judge had ignored material in the papers giving objective evidence that there were such arrests. On 4 September 2006 Senior Immigration Judge Waumsley ordered reconsideration. The reasons he gave were as follows:
“The grounds on which the appellant has applied for an order for reconsideration may be summarised as follows:
In rejecting the appellant's account that friends of hers had been arrested during or after the International Women's Day demonstration in Tehran on 8 March 2006 because there were no reports of such arrests in the objective material, the immigration judge failed to take account of objective material before him which reported that such arrests had in fact taken place;
An application to adduce fresh documentary evidence relating to such arrests.”
He later commented:
“Ground 2 is misconceived. Reconsideration lies on a point of law only. It was manifestly not an error of law on the part of the Immigration Judge not to take account of evidence which was not before him at the time of his decision.
…ground 1 clearly raises an arguable point of law which merits further consideration. Reconsideration is therefore ordered, limited to the issue raised in ground one.”
The next stage was for a decision to be made as to whether there was in fact an error of law. It appears that that was dealt with by the AIT sending to the representatives of the parties a “notice of reconsideration”. This was on 2 November 2006. It said that the senior immigration judge who has considered the case thought that there was a clear material error of law as identified in the grounds for review and the order for reconsideration read together, and the notice invited the parties to consider whether they would agree that this reconsideration should be subject to a direction in the following terms:
“Having considered the material before it and with the consent of the parties the Tribunal has decided that the original [tribunal] made a material error of law. This reconsideration will now proceed on the issue of whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed, and to substituting a fresh decision to the appropriate effect.”
The parties were invited to respond to that within 14 days.
It seems that the parties did accept that direction because the next stage was the hearing before Immigration Judge Birkby on 12 January 2007. Both parties were represented, the appellant by Mr Newman and the respondent by Miss Pope. The Immigration Judge records this at paragraph 3.
“This appeal comes before the Tribunal as a reconsideration of the Appellant's appeal which was original determined by an Immigration Judge in a decision promulgated on 22nd August 2006. At the reconsideration hearing on 23rd November 2006 a Senior Immigration Judge decided as follows:”
(There is then set out the direction which I have already quoted.)
Paragraph 4 continues:
“At the hearing before me both representatives agreed that I should consider all the evidence and issues in the case afresh. However Miss Pope on behalf of the Secretary of State conceded that the Appellant had attended at a demonstration in Iran on 8 March 2006 in Daneshgo Park in Tehran. Miss Pope however made no further concessions at the outset of the hearing, although I should state that during submissions she accepted that the objective evidence showed that arrests had been made at that demonstration. Miss Pope indicated that credibility was in issue. Consequently I have considered all matters in issue save for what the Home Office has conceded.”
The judge heard evidence, including evidence from the appellant, and heard submissions from the parties and references to the documentation. He dismissed the appeal but on rather different grounds to those of the previous judge. He accepted that there had been a demonstration on 8 March and arrests had been made following the demonstration. He also accepted that human rights abuses are widespread in Iran, particularly as taken by the state against political activists, and that women's groups have been targeted. However, he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray v Sekhri
...are begun." 10 Holman J rightly relied upon paragraph 8 of the judgment of Arden LJ in Barlow Clowes International Limited v Henwood [2008] EWCA Civ 77 as providing a convenient summary of the relevant principles of the law of domicile in the following terms: "The following principles of la......
-
HS (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...State [2001] WLR 1246. But there have been two other cases, in both of which I gave the lead judgment: HF (Algeria) [2007] EWCA Civ 445 and NJ (Iran) [2008] EWCA Civ 77. 19 In HF (Algeria) I identified the three steps which are involved under the procedure in the AIT (at paragraph 13). Firs......
-
JN (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...be confined to the matters on which reconsideration had been ordered was a matter of practice, not jurisdiction: see NJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ.77 at para.15, per Carnwath LJ. He said that if we did not accept his response to submission (1) – that......
-
Stalin Rajaratnam v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...in line with DK (Serbia), they may be reopened either by agreement of the parties or by acquiescence. 19 NJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 77 makes good that last submission in a case where there is express agreement. Ms Broadfoot submitted that the s......