S v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A fact-finder must assess credibility in the light of all the evidence, including relevant medical evidence. The law prescribes no fixed order in which that material must be considered. A determination is legally sufficient where, read fairly as a whole, it shows that the medical evidence informed the credibility assessment, even if the report is addressed expressly after detailed credibility findings.

Medical findings which are merely consistent with an applicant’s account will generally add little corroborative weight because they remain consistent with other causes. Exceptionally powerful or distinctive medical findings may provide clear independent support and must be addressed accordingly.

The appellant, an Ethiopian national, claimed asylum and protection under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She alleged political activity for the Oromo Liberation Front, the killing of her husband during a security raid, imprisonment and rape. A psychiatric report recorded physical injuries capable of being consistent with part of her account, post-traumatic stress symptoms and cognitive impairment.

An immigration judge rejected her account as wholly incredible and dismissed her claims. The appellant contended that the judge had reached his credibility findings before considering the medical evidence, contrary to Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367. The central issue was whether that approach disclosed a material error of law.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Reading the immigration judge’s determination fairly and as a whole, it was plain that he had considered the medical report while assessing credibility. He had described the alleged injuries, referred repeatedly to the evidential bundle containing the report, recorded submissions concerning it and stated both before and after his detailed credibility findings that he had considered the relevant evidence. The later express discussion of the report did not demonstrate an artificial separation between credibility and medical evidence.

2. Mibanga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367 was distinguishable. There the adjudicator had conclusively rejected central allegations before addressing exceptionally powerful and distinctive medical findings. That amounted to a structural failing. The present report merely found injuries consistent with debris falling or striking the appellant. It did not independently corroborate a distinctive form of assault or torture.

3. The Court applied HE (DRC Credibility and Psychiatric Reports) DRC CG [2004] UKIAT 00321. A medical opinion that a condition is merely consistent with the history given ordinarily means that it is also consistent with other causes. Such an opinion generally does not provide significant separate support for credibility, although exceptional reports may carry clear corroborative weight.

4. The Court approved the warning in HH Medical Evidence Effective Mibanga Ethiopia [2005] UKAIT 00164 that Mibanga imposes no prescribed order for considering evidential materials. A fact-finder must start somewhere. The controlling question is whether the determination, read as a whole, demonstrates that all relevant evidence was considered in the round.

5. The immigration judge had adequately explained why the report did not advance the claim. There was therefore no material error of law. It was unnecessary to rely on his alternative finding that the appellant would face no real risk on return even if her account were accepted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant’s appeal was dismissed by [2006] EWCA Civ 1153. The Court held that the immigration judge had considered the medical evidence as part of the credibility assessment and had made no material error of law.

2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The appeal arose from the immigration judge’s determination, promulgated on 15 August 2005, rejecting the asylum and human rights claims. No neutral citation for that determination is stated.