Secretary of State for the Home Department v Sirviene

In assessing whether a person facing persecution by non-State agents requires surrogate international protection, the tribunal must consider whether the home State affords sufficient protection. That assessment includes the conduct, corruption and regulation of State agents such as the police, as well as the effectiveness of protection nationally and in the individual case. A tribunal’s reasons need not address every evidential detail expressly where its decision shows that it considered the relevant issue, referred to the material evidence and reached a clear conclusion applying the governing principle.

The Secretary of State applied for permission to appeal against the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision allowing Asta Sirviene’s appeal from an adjudicator’s dismissal of her asylum claim. The adjudicator had accepted her credibility and found that removal to Lithuania would expose her to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention, although he dismissed the asylum claim. The Tribunal concluded that Lithuania continued to have effective protection against organised crime, despite police corruption and possible links between police officers and criminal elements. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had properly considered the sufficiency of State protection, including the conduct of the police.

1. Application refused. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal had considered the relevant issue, notwithstanding the brevity of its reasoning.

2. The governing Horvath principle is that persecution by non-State agents gives rise to a need for surrogate international protection only where the home State fails to afford sufficient protection. The assessment is not confined to the existence of criminal actors. It must also address the role of State agents, including whether police corruption or complicity prevents effective protection.

3. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of organised crime, police corruption and links between police and criminal elements. It recognised that corruption could make detection and prosecution more difficult, but also found evidence of governmental efforts and a willingness by the Lithuanian authorities to provide necessary protection.

4. The Tribunal’s conclusion that there was no national breakdown of effective protection against organised crime was sufficiently clear. Its reference to the possibility of pursuing complaints at higher levels showed that it had considered the individual circumstances as well as the general position.

5. The Court rejected the submission that the Tribunal had failed to consider State-agent involvement or the evidence concerning the police. The Tribunal had applied the overall protection principle in the Convention context.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s decision notified on 19 July 2002.
• Immigration Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal from the adjudicator.
• Adjudicator: dismissed the asylum claim but allowed the Convention claim on article 3 grounds.