B v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, the Court of Appeal addresses true points of law and procedural fairness. It must not conduct a further review of factual findings. Where the Tribunal has given reasons, a complaint that they are inadequate is not enough by itself. The central question is whether the decision was one that no Tribunal could sensibly reach on the evidence. Inadequate reasons may assist that assessment, but do not replace it. Intervention requires an error of law, procedural unfairness or perversity. The approach accords with [2005] EWCA Civ 947 and was endorsed in [2005] EWCA Civ 982.

An Afghan national appealed against an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal decision, promulgated on 27 October 2005, which dismissed his challenge to refusal of asylum and proposed return to Afghanistan. The Tribunal rejected his account that the Afghan authorities had arrested and killed his father and brother, had sought him because of his Taliban connections, and had identified him in a newspaper. He argued that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons and had failed properly to assess corroborative photographs and newspaper evidence. Permission had been granted on broadly expressed alleged errors of law. The central issue was whether those complaints permitted appellate intervention or merely invited reconsideration of credibility and fact.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Latham held that the complaint of inadequate reasoning did not, without more, establish an error of law. A complete absence of reasons may justify appellate intervention. Where reasons are given, their adequacy is a guide to the central question: whether the Tribunal reached a conclusion which no Tribunal could sensibly reach on the evidence. The reasons here were not well expressed, but they were not perverse.
2. The Tribunal had considered the appellant’s account and the photographs and newspaper article relied on as corroboration. It was entitled to doubt the account and to regard the newspaper material as insufficiently reliable to establish credibility. The Court of Appeal was not entitled to re-weigh that evidence or assume the fact-finding function entrusted to the Tribunal.
3. Lord Justice Carnwath agreed and explained that the direct route from the AIT to the Court of Appeal preserved the courts’ traditional role as final arbiters on issues of law and fairness of procedure. It was not intended to recreate a two-stage appeal involving a further review of facts. He referred to Akaeke v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 947, and noted that the same statement had been cited with approval in R(Iran) & Ors v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 982.
4. The factual-error ground based on E&R v SSHD [2004] EWCA Civ 49 was inapplicable. That authority concerned a decision resulting from misunderstanding or ignorance of an established and relevant fact, whereas no comparable error was shown here. Carnwath LJ added that AIT permission decisions should identify clearly the issues of law said to justify the Court of Appeal’s attention. Lord Justice Hughes agreed with both judgments. The order was: appeal dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2006] EWCA Civ 922: appeal dismissed. The Court held that no error of law or perversity had been established in the Tribunal’s decision.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — AIT No. AS/19590/2004, decision promulgated 27 October 2005: appeal dismissed against refusal of asylum and the requirement to return to Afghanistan.