SA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Medical evidence which corroborates an asylum seeker's account of torture or mistreatment must be considered with all the other evidence bearing on credibility. A fact-finder must not decide credibility first and then treat the medical evidence as an add-on.

A report prepared long after the alleged injuries has no corroborative weight merely because it records scars and repeats the claimant's explanation. It should state the doctor's opinion on whether the injuries are consistent with the alleged mistreatment. Where scars have commonplace possible causes, the report should also identify alternatives and any features which make the claimant's explanation more or less likely.

The appellant sought asylum on the basis that he had been persecuted and tortured in Somalia. An adjudicator rejected his account as lacking credibility. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal dismissed a reconsideration appeal, holding that a general practitioner's report merely recorded the appellant's explanations for his scars and contained no medical opinion about their causes.

Permission to appeal was granted on the issue whether the adjudicator had wrongly separated the medical evidence from the assessment of credibility, contrary to Mibanga v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367. The central question was whether the report constituted corroborative medical evidence which had to be integrated into the credibility assessment.

1. Appeal dismissed. The adjudicator had made no error of law in rejecting the appellant's account. Sir Mark Potter P delivered the judgment of the court. Brooke and Moore-Bick LJJ agreed.

2. Mibanga v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367 remained fully authoritative. Where medical evidence corroborates an account of torture or mistreatment, the fact-finder must consider it as part of the whole body of evidence relevant to credibility. The fact-finder must not reject credibility first and then ask whether the expert evidence alters that conclusion.

3. The present report was materially different from the expert report in Mibanga. It recorded the appellant's history, identified scars and repeated his explanations for them. The doctor did not express an independent opinion that the injuries were consistent with the alleged torture or consider possible alternative causes. The adjudicator was therefore entitled to treat the explanations as those of the appellant rather than as expert medical opinion.

4. A medical report prepared long after alleged persecution should contain a clear opinion about whether the identified injuries are consistent with the particular torture or mistreatment alleged if it is to have corroborative weight. Where marks are susceptible to everyday explanations, it is desirable to identify those alternatives and any physical features making the alleged cause more or less likely. Medical practitioners should have regard to the consistency gradations, overall assessment and requirements of objectivity and impartiality in the Istanbul Protocol.

5. The adjudicator's written reasons could formally be criticised because the report was addressed after adverse credibility findings. On a fair reading, however, the adjudicator had considered the submission that the report demonstrated injury, had reminded himself of the burden of proof and had correctly recognised that the report contained no independent opinion on causation. Its potential corroborative effect was consequently unfulfilled. The absence of an express sentence addressing that potential did not invalidate the decision.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the adjudicator had committed no error of law because the medical letter contained no independent opinion capable of corroborating the alleged causes of the injuries: [2006] EWCA Civ 1302.

2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On 17 November 2005 the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's reconsideration appeal. It held that the medical evidence merely repeated the appellant's account and did not corroborate the alleged torture.

3. Adjudicator: In a determination promulgated on 2 November 2004, the adjudicator dismissed the asylum and human-rights appeal on credibility grounds.