R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Sinathamby Kumar

An adjudicator who reaches a conclusion differing from earlier adjudicators must consider the material before him and explain his own conclusion. Earlier decisions are material but not binding. The duty does not require a line-by-line analysis of every earlier ruling or a detailed reconciliation of inconsistent decisions. If the adjudicator identifies the relevant material and gives reasons enabling the conclusion to be understood, a reviewing court should not interfere merely because other adjudicators reached a different view.

The applicant, a Sri Lankan citizen, arrived in the United Kingdom from Germany on a false passport and claimed asylum. The Home Secretary refused the application. A Special Adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 15 February 1996. Popplewell J refused leave to move for judicial review on 28 March 1996, and the applicant renewed the application in the Court of Appeal.

The central issue was whether the Special Adjudicator, having reached a different view from previous adjudicators about the safety of Germany, was required to give full reasons addressing those earlier decisions and whether the reasons given were sufficient.

The Court unanimously dismissed the renewed application for leave to move for judicial review.

1. Applicable approach. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the practical approach identified by Popplewell J was justified. An adjudicator must consider the material before him, including previous decisions, and explain the conclusion reached. He need not trawl through every earlier ruling or analyse the material in each decision line by line.
2. Status of earlier decisions. Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed that decisions of other adjudicators are not binding. They are material which must be taken into account. The adjudicator is not compelled to reconcile every inconsistent decision before reaching a different conclusion. Gnanavarathan v A Special Adjudicator [1995] Imm.AR 64 was treated as deciding only that the requirement to give full reasons was properly arguable, not as establishing an exhaustive reasoning obligation. The approach was consistent with Kanapathypillai [1996] Imm.AR 116, as explained by Evans LJ.
3. Application. The Special Adjudicator had considered previous decisions indicating that Germany was unsafe. He addressed the evidence of errors by border officials and explained why he regarded them as isolated incidents rather than reflecting German policy towards asylum seekers. His conclusion was therefore one he was manifestly entitled to reach, and neither the adjudicator nor Popplewell J had erred.
4. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith agreed with both judgments.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The renewed application for leave to move for judicial review was dismissed on 25 April 1996.
• High Court. Popplewell J refused leave to move for judicial review on 28 March 1996.
• Special Adjudicator. The applicant’s asylum appeal was dismissed on 15 February 1996.