R v Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Ayse Oran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1991 |
| Date | 05 February 1991 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Potts J
Miss F Webber for the applicant
J Burnett for the respondent
Cases referred to in the judgment:
Sivakumaran and ors v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentELRWLR [1988] AC 958: [1988] 2 WLR 92: [1988] Imm AR 147.
Marion Gaima v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1989] Imm AR 205.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte K [1990] Imm AR 393.
Celal Yurekli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1991] Imm AR 153.
Political asylum application refused notice of refusal failed specifically to record that the Secretary of State had not been satisfied that there was a reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be persecuted if returned to her own country whether from that omission it could be concluded that the Secretary of State had applied the wrong standard of proofSecretary of State had drawn conclusions adverse to the applicant from facts contained in a letter from her representatives applicant had had no opportunity to explain those matters whether in that regard the decision was unfair. HC 388 para. 75.
The applicant for judicial review was a Turkish Kurd. She was brought up in a Kurdish village where her family suffered harassment. She claimed to be politically active. The family moved to Istanbul: the applicant attended university: she asserted she remained politically active and was arrested. She left Turkey: she came to the United Kingdom where she applied for political asylum. The Secretary of State, after investigating the claim issued a notice of minded to refuse. In coming to that conclusion the Secretary of State had rejected certain claims put forward, on the applicant's behalf, by her legal representatives. She had not been given the opportunity to explain some matters in that letter from which adverse inferences had been drawn. Counsel submitted that following Gaima, in that respect the decision had been unfair. The notice of refusal had not specifically stated that the Secretary of State had not been satisfied that there was a reasonable likelihood of the applicant being persecuted if returned to Turkey. Counsel argued that the omission of that phrase (the test adopted in Sivakumaran) indicated that the Secretary of State had applied too high a standard of proof.
Held:
1. Reading the notice of refusal as a whole it could not be said that it had been shown that the wrong standard of proof had been applied.
2. Following Gaima however, and not ignoring the comments in ex parte K and Yurekli, there had been unfairness in not giving the applicant an opportunity to comment on those matters from which adverse conclusions had been drawn.
Potts J: On 3 April 1990 Kennedy J granted the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of a decision of the Secretary of State made on 13 January 1990 and communicated to the applicant in interview on the same day that the Secretary of State did not consider that she would face persecution in Turkey and he was not satisfied that she qualified for asylum.
The background is that the applicant, who was born in 1968 and is of Turkish nationality and Kurdish ethnic origin, came to the United Kingdom in June 1989. Before that she had lived in a village called Turktaner Hozat in Tunceli from her birth until 1987. Her family was politically active. In 1980 her father and brothers were detained and tortured. In 1981 another brother was detained. In 1984 she deposes that she was detained by police on her way to school having helped distribute leaflets in support of an organization called Dev Yol. She deposes that she was taken to the police station and held for a day and beaten on her back with a baton.
In 1986 her father and two of her brothers were detained for two days. Thereafter her father sold his land and moved to Istanbul and the applicant went with him.
In 1988 the applicant attended a university called the Anatolian University. She also attended lectures in Istanbul University from October 1988.
In March 1989 she supported a demonstration. She was arrested and taken to the police station and detained for a day. She deposes that she was accused of being a terrorist because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Le Tu Phuong And Another
...issues. 69. At the heels of these cases, Potts, J's decision in R. v. Secretary ofState for the Home Department, Ex parte Ayse Oran, [1991] Imm AR 290 stands out on its own. In his "minded to refuse" letter, the Secretary of State voiced his disbelief that the Turkish authorities would pers......