Martin, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a certification case, the Secretary of State may certify an asylum claim as clearly unfounded where, taking the claimant’s factual case and relevant expert evidence at its highest, the material does not demonstrate an arguable risk sufficient for the claim to succeed. Country-guidance categories are not exhaustive, and each case must be assessed on its own facts. However, a claimant’s falling outside those categories does not itself prevent certification. Evidence of deteriorating conditions may increase the apparent risk without necessarily displacing existing country guidance. The court must assess the totality of the material, including the quality, detail and particularisation of expert evidence.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to certify as clearly unfounded his asylum claim as a Sri Lankan national. Permission had been granted by Walker J on 30 June 2005. The claimant relied on evidence concerning the deteriorating security situation in Colombo, including reports from Amnesty International and Dr Chris Smith. The central issue was whether that material showed an arguable claim that he would face a Convention risk on return, such that certification was unlawful.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the claim was clearly unfounded. There was no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of the claimant’s publicly funded costs.
2. In a certification case, the Secretary of State and the court must proceed on the basis that the claimant’s factual case might be true. Relevant expert evidence should likewise be taken at its highest for the claimant where appropriate. The question remains whether the totality of the material demonstrates an arguable claim capable of succeeding before an immigration judge.
3. The country-guidance decision in PS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKIAT 00297 identified categories of persons at particular risk and analysed the comparatively small number of relevant incidents in Colombo. Those categories were not exclusive. A claimant need not fit a predetermined classification, but falling outside the categories was not determinative of the certification issue.
4. Sinnarasa v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 1126 showed that a claim outside the PS categories might nevertheless not be clearly unfounded where a combination of circumstances justified that conclusion. The combination present in Sinnarasa was absent here.
5. The evidence showed that conditions in Colombo had deteriorated and that risk to low-level LTTE personnel might have increased. Nevertheless, even accepting Dr Smith’s evidence at its highest, the material did not invalidate the essential reasoning in PS or demonstrate an arguable risk sufficient to prevent certification. The more detailed, sourced and particularised an expert report, the greater its significance; but the Secretary of State is not compelled to accept every expert conclusion.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted by Walker J on 30 June 2005.