TA (Guinea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may properly be granted where the application raises an arguable and significant question about whether a fact-finder’s assessment of a witness’s honesty, including the impression formed during cross-examination, amounts to an error of law. A fact-finding body may obtain an impression of a witness’s honesty for reasons that cannot always be fully articulated. Where the judge accepted explanations for discrepancies and nevertheless found the witness credible, the fairness of criticising the judge for not expressing every reason in detail may itself warrant consideration by the full court.

The claimant sought permission to appeal against an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal decision identifying errors of law in an immigration judge’s decision dated 23 June 2005. Following a further hearing on 20 March 2006, the immigration judge dismissed the claimant’s appeals. Keene LJ had refused permission but extended time for an appeal. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Tribunal had been entitled to identify the alleged errors of law, particularly in circumstances where the immigration judge had seen and heard the claimant, accepted explanations for discrepancies, and found him honest and credible.

1. Permission granted. The application raised an arguable and significant point concerning the effect, within an adjudication, of the impression made by a witness while giving evidence, particularly during cross-examination.
2. A fact-finding body may form an impression of a witness’s honesty for reasons which cannot always be clearly articulated. The immigration judge had faced discrepancies in the claimant’s evidence, accepted the explanations for them, and was prepared overall to believe that the claimant was telling the truth.
3. The full court should consider whether it was fair to criticise the immigration judge for failing fully to articulate the reasons for accepting the claimant’s evidence. The Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive appeal or finally decide whether the immigration judge had made an error of law.
4. The application for permission to appeal was granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Moses granted permission to appeal on 18 October 2006.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The Tribunal had identified errors of law in the immigration judge’s decision dated 23 June 2005. After a further hearing on 20 March 2006, the immigration judge dismissed the claimant’s appeals.
3. Permission stage: Keene LJ had refused permission but extended time for an appeal.