Ratnam, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Further representations may constitute a fresh human rights claim where they contain significant and credible material, unavailable when the earlier claim was determined, which materially changes the claim and creates a realistic prospect of a favourable outcome. A fresh claim can arise from a substantial deterioration in the claimant’s condition, even where the underlying source of risk remains unchanged. The Secretary of State must address the new evidence rationally, including its practical consequences on return. A failure to engage with a material change in medical evidence or with the claimant’s actual access to support and treatment may render the decision irrational.

The claimant, a Sri Lankan national suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, had previously failed in asylum and human rights proceedings. A later psychiatric report described a substantial deterioration, including loss of employment, active suicidal thoughts and dependence on her brother for medication and care. The Secretary of State declined to treat the further representations as a fresh claim. On judicial review, the central issue was whether that conclusion was irrational in light of the later medical evidence and the alleged absence of effective support in Sri Lanka.

1. The court accepted that paragraph 346 of the Immigration Rules should apply, with necessary modifications, to alleged fresh human rights claims as well as asylum claims. The relevant question was whether the new claim was sufficiently different from the earlier claim to give rise to a realistic prospect of a favourable decision, disregarding material that was insignificant, incredible or previously available.
2. The authorities established that the essential ingredients of the claim must be compared. A significant change may constitute a fresh claim even where the source of the alleged persecution or risk is unchanged. An intensification in the degree of risk can therefore be material.
3. The second psychiatric report was plainly significant and credible, and concerned developments after the earlier determination. It described a dramatic deterioration, high suicide risk, loss of employment and the claimant’s dependence on her brother for medication and support. Although the court could not reopen the earlier adverse findings concerning persecution in Sri Lanka, the medical consequences of removal and the absence of effective support were distinct material matters.
4. The Secretary of State’s decision failed properly to address the substantial change between the two medical reports, the claimant’s practical unlikelihood of obtaining treatment in Sri Lanka and the mistaken assumption that an aunt would provide support. The decision was therefore irrational. The decision of 19 November 2002, treated as superseding the earlier decisions, was quashed. The Secretary of State was required to treat the representations of 9 February 2002 as a fresh claim. The judgment did not determine the ultimate merits of that claim.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The decision dated 19 November 2002 was quashed, and the matter was returned to the Secretary of State for consideration as a fresh human rights claim.