TM (Persecution-Christians- Individual-General)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Ms S M Ward,Mrs W Jordan |
| Judgment Date | 15 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] UKIAT 4849 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
| Docket Number | Appeal no. HX31197-2001 |
| Date | 15 October 2002 |
[2002] UKIAT 4849
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Ms S M Ward (Chairman)
Mrs W Jordan
Appeal no. HX31197-2001
TM (Persecution-Christians — Individual-General) Sudan CG
The Appellant, a citizen of Sudan, was given leave in a determination notified on 18 December 2001, to appeal against the decision of an Adjudicator, Mr E F Cousins, promulgated on 14 November 2001, dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Respondent refusing asylum and human entitlements..
At the hearing before us the Appellant was represented by Mr Srinivasan, solicitor, and the Respondent was represented by Mr Sheikh, Home Office Presenting Officer.
The Appellant's claim is that she is a Roman Catholic and subject to persecution in the Sudan. Her house was bombed and she was raped by soldiers. Her sister was also raped and killed.
On 12 July 2002 Mr Srinivasan sent a faxed request for an adjournment to the Tribunal. In his request he stated that an adjournment was requested because the Appellant had been in hospital for the last two months “or so” and was only discharged on 10 July 2002. Mr Srinivasan renewed his request orally to us on 15 July 2002. When asked why he needed an adjournment Mr Srinivasan replied that he needed the adjournment in order to get a medical report as the Appellant had been a victim of rape. We informed Mr Srinivasan that this did not appear to be in dispute and Mr Srinivasan confirmed that it was not. Mr Srinivasan then informed us that he needed a medical report on the psychiatric condition of the Appellant in case this appeal were unsuccessful and the Respondent decided to give effect to the removal directions. We then inquired why this report had not been sought earlier and we were told that the case had been handled by a colleague of Mr Srinivasan, the latter only having become involved with the matter of Friday 12 July when he determined that a medical report was necessary, he said. Mr Sheikh for his part submitted that it was not clear to him why such a report was needed and why it had not been obtained previously.
We considered Mr Srinivasan's request. No adequate reason for adjourning the hearing had been provided. It appeared that he wanted to obtain a psychiatric report on the Appellant for submission to the Respondent, and not for the purposes of this hearing. In any event, we noted that his firm had acted for the Appellant at the hearing before the Adjudicator, and Mr Srinivasan confirmed to us that his firm had been acting for the Appellant since 25 September 2001. We were of the view that the Appellant's representatives had had more than enough time to acquire such a report for use at the hearing, if indeed such a report were to be relevant to any matter under consideration by us. It was by no means clear from Mr Srinivasan's submissions that it would assist the Appellant in this appeal. We therefore declined to grant an adjournment and informed Mr Srinivasan that we would hear this appeal as the last matter in the list, thus affording him further time to prepare, should he require it.
When we later began the hearing of this appeal, we directed Mr Srinivasan's attention to the Adjudicator's conclusion that the Appellant had been an very unfortunate victim of war, rather than a victim of persecution for a Convention reason and we asked if he wished to challenge this conclusion. Mr Srinivasan said that he did. He said that the Appellant had been raped and her sister killed and she could expect to be the subject of further persecution on her return to Sudan. She had suffered in this way because she was a Roman Catholic. We then asked Mr Srinivasan to address us with regard to the Appellant's human rights. He replied that he relied upon Articles 3,5, 6, 8 and 10 of the 1951 Convention, although he later decided to withdraw Article 10. We then asked him to address us with respect to each Article with his submissions regarding how the Appellant's human rights might be breached by her removal to Sudan. Mr Srinivasan's submission with regard to Article 3 was that the Appellant would suffer from psychological problems on her return. She had been raped and that she would face the same treatment on her return. As regards Article 5, Mr Srinivasan submitted that, because the country is predominantly Muslim, the Appellant would suffer persecution because of her religion. With respect to Article 6, he submitted that the Appellant would not get a fair trial if she reported the matter of her rape to the police. As for Article 8, it was his submission that the Appellant would be violated again if she returned to her country and this would constitute a breach of Article 8. Mr Srinivasan had not filed (nor did he seek to tender at the hearing) any background material, nor indeed any evidence at all in support of his submissions.
Mr Sheikh submitted that the Adjudicator had approached this appeal in the correct manner. In paragraph 31 of the Determination the Adjudicator had concluded that the Appellant had been caught up in the on-going civil war in Sudan and was a victim of war, not a victim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MH (Darfurians: relocation to Khartoum?)
...AE (Relocation-Darfur-Khartoum an option) Sudan CG [2005] UKAIT 00101 and TM (Persecution—Christians – Individual – General) Sudan CG [2002] UKIAT 04849 were to be considered as furnishing current country guidance. The background evidence 19 Ms Ganning sought to persuade us that a combinati......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-04-03, [2006] UKAIT 33 (MH (Darfurians, Relocation to Khartoum?))
...AE (Relocation-Darfur-Khartoum an option) Sudan CG [2005] UKAIT 00101 and TM (Persecution- Christians – Individual – General) Sudan CG [2002] UKIAT 04849 were to be considered as furnishing current country The background evidence Ms Ganning sought to persuade us that a combination of recent......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2006-01-31, [2006] UKAIT 6 (BA (Military Service, No Risk))
...period, none of the existing Country Guideline cases on Sudan (save for TM (Persecution- Christians – Individual – General) Sudan CG [2002] UKIAT 04849 and AE (Relocation – Darfur – Khartoum an option) Sudan CG [2005] UKAIT 00101) are to be considered any longer to furnish current country g......
-
Ba (Military Service – No Risk)
...period, none of the existing Country Guideline cases on Sudan (save for TM (Persecution- Christians — Individual — General) Sudan CG [2002] UKIAT 04849 and AE (Relocation — Darfur — Khartoum an option) Sudan CG [2005] UKAIT 00101 ) are to be considered any longer to furnish current country ......