A v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing credibility, a fact-finder must decide whether an account is true, rather than whether the events described were probable or plausible. Unusual or improbable events may occur. Treating implausibility as a substitute for deciding what happened may amount to legal error.

A challenge is arguable where corroborative documents may not have received proper consideration, particularly where they may support medical evidence. If the evidence is insufficient to decide an extension of time, the court should obtain focused explanations and responses before determining the issue.

The appellant sought permission to appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s reconsideration decision, together with an extension of time. The Tribunal had disbelieved his account of persecution in Iran, including his evidence concerning property allegedly used as security for his release. The application to the Tribunal had been lodged out of time, and a senior immigration judge refused it for want of jurisdiction.

Before the Court of Appeal, the central issues were whether the proposed appeal was arguable and whether the court could determine the time issue on the evidence then available.

1. Disposition. The application was granted, but the grant of permission to appeal was subject to resolution of whether time should be enlarged. The judge indicated that, subject to that issue, permission was otherwise to be granted.
2. Credibility assessment. A fact-finder’s task is to decide whether an occurrence or account is what happened. It is not to decide only whether the occurrence was probable or plausible. Improbable or implausible events may nevertheless occur. The increasing practice of treating implausibility as a reason for finding that an applicant is lying was therefore open to serious question.
3. Documentary evidence. The translated deed identified the Islamic Revolutionary Court as holding the property as security for the appellant’s release on bail. The Tribunal had not found the document inauthentic, and its reasoning about how the document reached the United Kingdom did not necessarily answer the appellant’s case. It was arguable that the corroborative documentation had not received the consideration to which it was entitled and that, considered with the medical evidence, it might affect the credibility assessment.
4. Extension of time. The evidence did not permit the court either to enlarge time or to refuse enlargement. The appellant was directed to provide a full explanation for the delay within two weeks. The Home Office was given fourteen days to respond, with a further week for the appellant to reply if an objection was made. The issue was then to be determined on the papers or, if necessary, by the full court as the first issue in the appeal.

1. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. On reconsideration, the Tribunal disbelieved the appellant’s account. The application for permission to appeal was lodged out of time. A senior immigration judge refused it for want of jurisdiction on 7 March 2006.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The court granted the application, subject to determining whether time should be enlarged, and gave directions for further evidence and responses on that issue.