Sugar v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum claim based on persecution by non-state agents, the question is whether the home state operates a practical system of protection. The standard is not a guarantee against every attack. The claimant must show that the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection, assessed on the individual facts.

An appellate tribunal may rely on an authoritative country-specific determination addressing the general availability of protection, while still considering each claim on its own facts. A failure to refer expressly to every document does not necessarily establish inadequate reasoning where the material adds nothing material to the established country evidence. Civil or governmental support bodies may properly be considered, but they cannot replace the state’s primary duty to provide protection through the criminal justice system.

The appellant, a Roma from the Czech Republic, claimed asylum after attacks by skinheads. He argued that his relationship with a white, non-Roma Czech woman placed him at particular risk and that the Czech authorities had failed to protect him.

The adjudicator dismissed his appeal, finding that sufficient protection was available in the Czech Republic. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal dismissed his further appeal, holding that the attacks were part of the general pattern of attacks on Roma and were not shown to result from the mixed relationship. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted against that determination.

The central issues were whether the Tribunal had misapplied the sufficiency-of-protection principle, failed to consider relevant evidence or the appellant’s history, and wrongly treated alternative Roma-support bodies as relevant to state protection.

1. Appeal dismissed. Laws LJ gave the leading judgment. Mance LJ and Sir Martin Nourse agreed.
2. The governing approach was supplied by Horvath [2000] 3 All ER 577. In non-state-agent cases, refugee protection depends on whether the home state is unable or unwilling to discharge its duty to protect its nationals. The standard is practical and does not require elimination of every risk or protection against isolated and random attacks.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant’s attacks were not targeted particularly because of his mixed relationship. The weight given to that factual issue was for the Tribunal, and no error of law was shown.
4. The country evidence had been substantially addressed in Puzova and Others, an extensive country-specific determination. That determination found that Czech Roma generally had access to effective criminal-law protection, while emphasising that each case remained fact-sensitive. The Court of Appeal had previously approved the use of such an authoritative determination in S and Others. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to rely on it. The two later documents were general and added nothing capable of changing the evidential picture. Their omission from the Tribunal’s express reasoning did not amount to a failure to consider relevant material or to give proper reasons.
5. The Tribunal had considered the appellant’s evidence through the adjudicator’s detailed findings. Its reference to Roma-support organisations did not exonerate the Czech state from its primary duty to provide protection through the criminal justice system. It was permissible, and potentially obligatory, to consider remedies available within the state.
6. The Tribunal’s reference to Horvath did not make the result legally predetermined, despite that case concerning Slovak rather than Czech Roma. The country-specific material in Puzova and Others independently supported the conclusion. Harakel v Secretary of State for the Home Office was distinguishable on its facts and supplied no basis for allowing this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant’s costs were to be assessed under the Community Legal Service (Costs) Regulations and were subject to detailed assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s determination dismissed.
2. Immigration Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the adjudicator’s decision.
3. Adjudicator: dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant asylum, finding sufficient protection available in the Czech Republic.