Mohammed Said Mohammed -v- Immigration Appeal Tribunal

Where documents relied on in an asylum appeal are of uncertain authenticity and carry no evidential weight, an adjudicator may treat them as neutral. The adjudicator need not treat them as corroborative, weigh them in the claimant’s favour, or use them in assessing credibility. An alleged failure by the Secretary of State to prove that the documents are inauthentic does not create an error of law where credibility is decided on the remaining evidence. The private procedure for considering forgery evidence may be short-circuited where the applicant’s representative does not press for it and the evidence would be inconclusive.

The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal’s refusal of permission to appeal from a special adjudicator’s dismissal of his asylum appeal. He relied on a Somali identity card and birth certificate, which the Home Office’s National Forgery Section had been unable to validate. The adjudicator treated the documents as neutral and rejected the applicant’s account on credibility grounds. Ouseley J refused permission on paper, Keith J refused it on oral renewal, and Sedley LJ refused it on the papers. The renewed application concerned the evidential treatment of the documents and the statutory procedure for alleged forgery.

1. Application refused. The adjudicator made no error of law by treating the identity card and birth certificate as neutral and deciding credibility from the other evidence.
2. The evidence did not establish whether the documents were valid or invalid. They could not fairly be treated as corroborative or given weight in the applicant’s favour. They should not count against his credibility either.
3. The adjudicator was entitled to assess credibility without treating documents of uncertain authenticity as relevant to that assessment. Having found the applicant’s account incredible, he was entitled on that basis not to accept the documents as genuine.
4. The criticism that the Secretary of State bore the burden of proving the documents inauthentic was misplaced. The adjudicator had not rejected the documents as forged after placing an incorrect burden of proof on the Secretary of State. He had treated them as carrying no weight.
5. The procedure in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 did not require a further private hearing in these circumstances. The applicant’s representative had not pressed for the forensic evidence to be heard privately, and the adjudicator considered that the evidence would be inconclusive. The procedure could therefore be short-circuited, leaving the documents neutral.
6. The order was: application refused; detailed assessment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the renewed oral application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Sedley LJ refused the application on the papers.
3. High Court: Ouseley J refused permission on paper and Keith J refused permission on oral renewal.