CT & Anor (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an application for permission to appeal in an asylum case, complaints about adverse factual findings will ordinarily fail where the findings were open to the immigration judge and adequately reasoned. A material issue arises where the judge may have misunderstood expert psychiatric evidence about suicidal ideation or self-harm. The adequacy of care on return must be assessed by reference to the applicant’s actual potential condition, not in the abstract. Permission was therefore granted on the suicide and self-harm ground alone.

Two Sri Lankan siblings sought permission to appeal after Senior Immigration Judge Lane refused permission to appeal against Designated Immigration Judge Manuell’s reconsideration of their asylum claims. They alleged persecution by the Sri Lankan authorities and the LTTE, a real risk of suicide or self-harm engaging Article 3 of the European Convention, and interference with Article 8 arising from their relationship with their aunt in the United Kingdom.

The immigration judge rejected the persecution case, found that the applicants could safely relocate to Colombo, and rejected the Article 8 case. He also found that there was no real suicide risk and, alternatively, that adequate care and protective measures would be available. The central issue was whether those conclusions involved an arguable misunderstanding or inadequate treatment of the psychiatric evidence.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was granted on the fourth ground only, concerning the risk of suicide or self-harm. The remaining grounds had no reasonable prospect of success.
2. The immigration judge was entitled to make the relevant factual findings. Past ill-treatment did not compel a finding of future persecution. The judge considered the circumstances in Sri Lanka, gave adequate reasons, and found that safe internal relocation to Colombo was available. That finding was not successfully challenged.
3. The Article 8 complaint was properly rejected. The assessment of whether dependency on the aunt was economic or emotional, and its effect on Article 8 rights, was for the immigration judge. It was not for expert witnesses to determine the legal significance of the relationship.
4. There was an arguable error in the treatment of the suicide evidence. The judge stated that Dr Eberstein had repeatedly said that the applicants had no suicidal ideation, although her evidence included a substantial risk of self-harm on return for one applicant and a history of suicidal ideation for the other. The judge had not sufficiently explained why the opinions of Dr Eberstein, Dr Patterson and the clinical psychologist were rejected.
5. The availability of care in Sri Lanka could not be assessed in the abstract. Its adequacy had to be considered in light of the applicants’ actual potential psychiatric condition. The alternative conclusion that they would receive a minimal but adequate standard of care was insufficiently reasoned for permission purposes. The court accepted that the authorities would exercise utmost care and supervision during removal, but that did not resolve the separate issues concerning the medical evidence and care after return. The court considered the principles referred to in [2005] EWCA Civ 629 and [2005] UKHL 31, and noted the correction of the truly exceptional test in [2007] UKHL 11.

The application was granted.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Designated Immigration Judge Manuell reconsidered and rejected the applicants’ claims.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Senior Immigration Judge Lane refused permission to appeal by a decision dated 20 August 2007.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted on the suicide and self-harm ground only; the other grounds were refused. [2007] EWCA Civ 1552