[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Zekaj, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1643 (Admin) (26 April 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/1643.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 1643 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		26 April 2016

MR JUSTICE COLLINS:

1. This is a renewed application seeking judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse the claim for asylum and humanitarian protection made by the claimant.
2. The claimant came here from Albania as a result, she says, of the fear of attacks upon her by her father and her then boyfriend. The history very briefly was that -- this is her case -- her father informed her in 2010 that he had found a man for her to marry. He would not listen to her concerns that she did not want to marry that particular person. He was a gambler and a drinker and the marriage only lasted some 6 months, when he then disappeared.
3. Some two years later in August 2012, she was introduced to a man who became her boyfriend and indeed by whom she has had a child. That relationship was conducted in secret from her parents. It came to light in December 2012 and she was beaten by her father and told that he would arrange for her to marry someone else and he had, she said, found someone in January 2013. She contacted the boyfriend, told him to pick her up and went to live with him. All was well to start with but he then came home drunk and forced her, she said, to work for him as a prostitute in order to clear his debts. She was raped, it seems, by both the boyfriend and the two friends who came to the house with him. She was later beaten up and her father was threatening to kill her.
4. She went to live with an uncle and had support of her mother for a time but, she said, that became impossible because there were concerns that her father and the ex-boyfriend would find her. The police did not help and refused to take any steps to assist her and so in August 2013 she left Albania by arrangement with her uncle through an agent and claimed asylum when she got to this country.
5. The submission has been made this morning that she should have been regarded as a victim of trafficking, but that claim has not been made directly because she was put, she says, to prostitution by her boyfriend in Albania. The Secretary of State considered the matter clearly on the basis of the claim for asylum and what she might suffer in Albania, including forced prostitution, was clearly capable of breaching Article 3. There is one error in the decision letter, in that it is said that what she complained of did not amount to persecution and clearly it was capable of so doing.
6. The basis of the refusal of humanitarian protection and asylum was that she feared attacks from two people, namely, her father and her boyfriend, but that she had been able to avoid them by living with an uncle from whom she had support, but there was a possibility of internal relocation to avoid them. There was no indication that either or both of them had particular clout with the authorities, and albeit she had problems with getting the police to be involved in the past, if there was a real fear of violence that was something which the police would be able to deal with.
7. The question is whether the decision that there could be no successful appeal against the refusal of asylum on humanitarian protection was correct. There was a challenge in the grounds to the inclusion of Albania as a country which came within S.94(3) of the Act, described as a white country, one that is regarded as safe.
8. The tribunal before whom this claim was originally lodged by the claimant in person refused jurisdiction, the judge saying that there was an attack on primary legislation. That is wrong. Nonetheless, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction because there was an attack on the secondary legislation and that clearly was set out in the grounds. However, as I put to Miss Iqbal, it really was not necessary to raise that because the same issue arises on the question of whether there was was an appropriate certification. I do not think that this case is the one to take the Albania safe point. It is not necessary.
9. I am persuaded that the indications and the reasons given in the refusal letter do stand up. I do not think that in all the circumstances this claim would be able to succeed before an immigration judge. Therefore, I am afraid, that this is a case in which I must refuse permission.

MISS IQBAL: My lord, before you rise there is of course the issue of the cost order.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Was there a costs order?

MISS IQBAL: I think there is. It was a costs order for £320 for the acknowledgement of service.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am not willing to make any further costs.

MISS IQBAL: I am grateful. That leaves the issue of permission to appeal.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Sorry?

MISS IQBAL: I would seek permission to appeal further.

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Refused.