Singh & Anor, R (on the application of) v Special Adjudicator

In an asylum challenge, a special adjudicator may reject an account of torture or ill-treatment as lacking credibility where it contains material inconsistencies, including conflicting dates given at different stages, and the discrepancy was already raised in the Secretary of State’s decision. A separate finding on detention is unnecessary where the decisive issue is whether ill-treatment occurred during any detention. The adjudicator need not refer expressly to every document if the decision shows consideration of the totality of the evidence. A judicial review application should not be recast at the permission stage through a fresh argument based on material not relied on before the adjudicator. Where no arguable legal error is shown, permission should be refused.

The applicants, a father and son, sought asylum on the basis that they had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated in India and would face persecution if returned. The Special Adjudicator rejected their accounts as lacking credibility and upheld the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum.

On 21 July 2000, Jackson J refused permission to apply for judicial review. Counsel appearing for the applicants had accepted that there were insuperable obstacles to permission and made no substantive submissions. The applicants then sought permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the Special Adjudicator’s credibility assessment and treatment of the background evidence disclosed an arguable error of law.

The application for permission to appeal was refused unanimously. Lord Justice Longmore gave the first judgment, and Lord Justice Mummery agreed.

1. Credibility assessment. The Special Adjudicator was entitled to rely on the inconsistency between the specific dates given by the first applicant on arrival and the different dates given later in evidence. The discrepancy had been expressly relied on in the Secretary of State’s decision letter and was therefore a matter in the arena which the applicant had to address. His proposed explanation that he had a poor memory did not prevent the adjudicator from treating the conflicting accounts as damaging to credibility.
2. Detention and ill-treatment. It was unnecessary on the facts to make a separate finding on whether the applicant had been detained. The material issue was whether he had been tortured or ill-treated during detention, and the adjudicator had rejected that account as incredible.
3. Background evidence. A decision-maker is not required to refer expressly to every document placed before her. The adjudication stated that the conclusion was based on the totality of the evidence and gave no basis for concluding that relevant material had been ignored.
4. Fresh argument. The proposed reliance on an updated assessment of India to argue that the applicant might be regarded as a militant was a fresh argument that had not been advanced before the Special Adjudicator. The case before her had been that the applicants were ill-treated, and she had rejected that case on credibility grounds.

The Court of Appeal found no arguable error of law or other basis for judicial review. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 3 May 2001, after an oral hearing of the application for permission to appeal, refused permission and concluded that permission to apply for judicial review was unsuitable. [2001] EWCA Civ 656
• High Court of Justice: Jackson J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 21 July 2000.