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] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> MS (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 271 (19 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/271.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Civ 271 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
[AIT No. AA/04285/2005]
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE RIX
and
LORD JUSTICE GAGE
____________________
MS (Iran) |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT |
Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR K BEAL (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Auld:
(1) A finding by the Immigration Judge of inconsistency in the appellant's account of his recording of video tapes for his friends. In the Senior Immigration Judge's view, the Immigration Judge had been wrong to find that there was such inconsistency. However, he expressed the view that the error was not in the event material.
(2) A finding of inconsistency by the Immigration Judge in MS's account of how many people had attended the demonstration outside Tehran University. It was the Senior Immigration Judge's view that there was no material discrepancy in that account and that the Immigration Judge should not have relied upon it.
(3) The Immigration Judge's conclusion that it was MS's mother who should have been arrested and not him, in relation to the purchase of a replacement satellite system after the confiscation of the first. On the Senior Immigration Judge's view, that was an unreasonable finding and not properly reasoned.
(1) MS did not mention that the Islamic Secret Police had a role in the matter until the hearing of his appeal; an omission which the Immigration Judge considered undermined the credibility of his account. That was a finding of incredibility which was not challenged before the Senior Immigration Judge.
(2) A finding by the Immigration Judge that it was not credible that MS's mother would supply another satellite dish so soon after the first had been confiscated, a finding upheld by the Senior Immigration Judge as being reasonably open to him.
(3) A conclusion by the Immigration Judge that MS and his mother would have known that satellite dishes had been banned in Iran, at the very least after the first confiscation, a finding upheld by the Senior Immigration Judge as one reasonably open to the Immigration Judge, despite some contrary objective country material indicating that satellite dishes were easily obtainable in Iraq despite being banned.
(4) A finding by the Immigration Judge that it was not credible for MS to have recorded more tapes after his first brush with the authorities, having regard to the action taken by his headmaster and possibly the Iranian Secret Service in relation to the confiscation of the first lot of satellite equipment. That finding of incredibility by the Immigration Judge was not challenged on the reconsideration before the Senior Immigration Judge.
(5) A finding by the Immigration Judge that it was highly unlikely that MS would have been singled out by way of a photograph from a video still of the crowd chanting in the demonstration outside Tehran University, a finding upheld by the Senior Immigration Judge.
(6) A point made by the Immigration Judge against MS that he had not suggested he needed medical attention following his 45 days' detention and brutal treatment by the Iranian police, a matter that the Immigration Judge regarded as being inconsistent with his account of torture and brutality during that period. The Senior Immigration Judge upheld that finding, accepting that the absence of any suggestion of the need for medical attention undermined credibility of MS's claim.
(6) A finding by the Immigration Judge of a discrepancy in the account given by MS of the way in which he came to leave Iran. That finding against MS was not challenged by him on the reconsideration before the Senior Immigration Judge, and remained, in the Senior Immigration Judge's, view perfectly sustainable.
(8) In relation to the purported court summons and Dr Ansari's evidence, the Immigration Judge's view that there was no credible explanation as to how MS obtained that document from his mother and that he did not know where she was at the material time. The Senior Immigration Judge upheld that criticism by the Immigration Judge, regarding it as sound and certainly not one disclosing any error of law.
"In conclusion, while I have accepted that some of the findings made by the Immigration Judge were unreasonable, they do not constitute material errors of law. Accordingly, the original decision dismissing the appellant's appeal shall stand."
However, it is plain from the subject matter of each of the Immigration Judge's findings, and as rehearsed seriatim by the Senior Immigration Judge, that the latter's somewhat cryptic conclusion in paragraph 24 that he was satisfied overall that so small was the materiality or significance of the three errors of the Immigration Judge when compared with the cogency of her other adverse findings of credibility, that he would have reached the same conclusion without them.
"With respect to the authenticity of the summons, there is nothing which would lead me to believe that it had been forged. It is entirely true as the British Embassy points out that forgeries would be generally easy to make and that individuals are available to type out the necessary forms. In this case, the form is typed rather than handwritten, which is different to other similar documents I have seen, although this cannot be taken as an indication of a forgery (it is just as, if not more likely that a handwritten form would be forged). The existence however of an official Revolutionary Court stamp on this warrant makes it extremely unlikely that this is a forgery."
"The Appellant submits a summons which he alleges was sent to him by his mother after her left Iran. I have considered this document in the light of both the evidence of Dr A. M. Ansari … and the case of Tanveer Ahmed [2002] UKIAT 00439. I do not find the summons to be a reliable document given:
a. the afore-mentioned credibility findings;
b. The fact that Dr. Ansari indicates … that the summons is in a form which is different to other similar documents that he has seen in that it is typed. Furthermore, he does not indicate what an authentic summons would look like. He also accepts that it is entirely true that forgeries would be generally easy to make. I do not find that it has been shown that the existence of a revolutionary court stamp on the summons makes it is [sic] extremely unlikely that it is a forgery given the afore-mentioned.
c. I also find that the Appellant was to say at the hearing that he does not know where his mother is. In which case, I find it highly unlikely that she would contact him by way of sending a summons and not indicating where she was.
d. It is of note that even if I had found that the summons was genuine, the determination [that refers to Tanveer] … indicates that there is nothing about the UN finding evidence of torture, let alone torture in ordinary prisons or treatment which breaches Article 3 to the ECHR."
"It is not as suggested in the grounds that Dr Ansari looked at the general layout and other parts of the summons. It appears that having accepted that it is entirely true that forgeries would be generally easy to make, the only basis for saying that this document would not be a forgery was the Revolutionary Court stamp. Dr Ansari then confirms that the summons was typed rather than handwritten which was different from other similar documents that he had seen, but he does not as rightly stated by the Immigration Judge indicate what an authentic summons would [look] like. Accordingly, I do not find that the Immigration Judge misunderstood Dr Ansari's report. It is clear also from paragraph 31 that the Immigration Judge applied the principles in Tanveer Ahmed in his consideration of the report. He did not find the summons to be a reliable document and gave sound reasons for his finding. His conclusion discloses no error of law."
"Therefore, I do not find that the Appellant was involved in videoing satellite television in March or April 2002. Even if he had, I conclude that I do not find that the Appellant's initial alleged involvement with videoing television programs resulted in him being persecuted or ill-treated. He was fined and excluded from school for a short period and warned about his behaviour. I do not find he was involved in any videoing thereafter. I do not find that he was involved in a demonstration. I do not find that he was subsequently detained for forty-five days and ill-treated."
Lord Justice Rix:
Lord Justice Gage:
Order: Appeal dismissed.