BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> MT (Credibility assessment flawed, Virjon B applied) Syria [2004] UKIAT 00307 (25 November 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00307.html Cite as: [2004] UKIAT 307, [2004] UKIAT 00307 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
MT (Credibility assessment flawed Virjon B applied) Syria [2004] UKIAT 00307
Date of hearing: 27 October 2004
Date Determination notified: 25 November 2004
MT | APPELLANT |
and | |
Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
"In evidence the Appellant said that he had contacted the SHRC [Syrian Human Rights Committee] through the internet and obtained the documents from the Moslem Brotherhood after he contacted his brothers. In view of my findings on the Appellant's credibility, I give no weight to these documents. With regard to the claimed court proceedings dated 25th July 2000, I do not accept that the Appellant would be in prison for three years and fined a substantial sum for leaving his work without permission. Even if this document was genuine, the judgment discloses that it is possible to appeal against a decision, although the Appellant claimed in paragraph 15 of his statement that it was not possible to appeal against this decision. After looking at all the evidence in the round, I am not prepared to place reliance on these documents and I take into account the guidance in the starred IAT determination of Tanveer Ahmed. The Appellant has not established a well founded fear of persecution and in reaching my decision, I take into account not only the history of the matter and the situation at the date of the decision but also the question of persecution if he were to be returned" (emphasis added).
"19. In this particular case, the Adjudicator dealt with the linked questions of credibility and the medical evidence as follows (I quote from paragraph 24 of the written determination);
"I find that there is little corroborating evidence from Albania about the appellant's wife's rape. The evidence of both the appellant and his wife was that they went to see the public investigator who was afraid to help them because she feared for her job and for her life and therefore referred them to a gynaecologist. Even if the gynaecologist was not willing to write a report stating that the appellant's wife had been raped they could surely have gone to another doctor and told him that she had been raped without mentioning that the attackers were police officers. I find the appellant and his wife both knew about the importance of medical evidence in this regard. The report produced by the appellant's wife and the gynaecologist only referred to facial injuries. I find that these could have been caused by any incident or even an accident. The medical reports of Dr Rich, Dr George and Dr Varley refer to the clinical depression and post traumatic stress disorder of both applicants resulting from the rape incident. However, these reports were based upon the evidence which the appellant and his wife gave the doctors. I therefore attach little weight to the reports bearing in mind that I have found both the appellant and his wife to be without credibility".
20. Miss Chapman [counsel for the claimant] submitted that it was clear from that paragraph that the Adjudicator had fallen into error in two main respects. First, the Adjudicator had dealt with credibility in advance of a consideration of the medical evidence of Dr George and Dr Varley and had then used the adverse credibility findings in order to reject that medical evidence, that being an incorrect approach to the issue of credibility; see ex parte Ahmed and Ademaj. Second, if the medical evidence of Dr George and Dr Varley was to be dismissed, it should not have been dismissed as it was, namely on a peremptory and unreasoned basis. In order to reject that evidence, the Adjudicator had to give sensible and comprehensible reasons for doing so.
21. I find both submissions are well founded. It is clear to me that the Adjudicator used her adverse findings of credibility with regard to the claimant and his wife as the means whereby to reject the important and significant evidence of Dr George and Dr Varley. That was putting the cart before the horse. The evidence of Dr George and Dr Varley was strongly corroborative of the truth of the account given by the claimant and his wife about the serious rape that was suffered by the wife. It was therefore necessary for the Adjudicator to take that evidence into account as part of her consideration of all the evidence, before coming to any conclusion as to the credibility of the claimant and his wife.
22. In my judgment, the Adjudicator thereby fell into error in her approach to the evidence when considering the credibility of the claimant and his wife. Furthermore, the Adjudicator also fell into error in failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence of Dr George and Dr Varley. The only reason given was the adverse finding as to the credibility of the claimant and his wife but, as I have already said, that finding was itself flawed because it had been reached by the Adjudicator as a result of her error in her approach to the evidence. It would have been open to the Adjudicator to reject this important medical evidence, but only on a properly reasoned basis and no such reasoned basis was put forward. To the extent that any reason was given, the reason was itself a result of an error in the approach adopted by the Adjudicator to the evidence, the error being that which I have already explained.
23. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that the Adjudicator's adverse finding as to the credibility of the claimant and his wife cannot stand. The Adjudicator failed to evaluate the evidence properly and approached it in the wrong way. She also rejected an important body of medical evidence which corroborated the truth of the claimant's assertions, without giving any proper reasons for doing so. Accordingly, and for those reasons, the application succeeds. I should add that, although I have indicated doubts as to the substance of the other grounds raised by Miss Chapman, for the reasons already given, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to express any concluded view as to the criticisms made of the Adjudicator's approach to those matters".
Signed
L V Waumsley
Vice President
Approved for electronic distribution