KP (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On remission of an asylum appeal, the tribunal must make clear findings about the extent of the claimant’s credibility where past events are relevant to risk on return. It must identify what aspects of the account are accepted or rejected.

Where detailed medical evidence supports a claim through evidence of injury and likely causation, the tribunal must give adequate reasons if it rejects that evidence. A bare statement that injuries are equally consistent with accidents in a rural community is insufficient. The remission should permit a comprehensive reconsideration, including credibility and medical evidence.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan national, challenged the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s dismissal of his asylum and human-rights appeals. He claimed detention and ill-treatment by both the army and the LTTE. The Secretary of State accepted that more recent evidence concerning conditions in Sri Lanka required consideration and that the risk on return might have changed, but argued that the tribunal’s adverse credibility findings should stand.

The central issue was whether the case should be remitted only for consideration of updated country evidence or on a broader basis including credibility and medical evidence.

Appeal allowed. The case was remitted to the tribunal for a rehearing on the broader basis sought by the appellant.

1. Credibility and risk on return. The tribunal’s determination did not make sufficiently clear findings about the appellant’s alleged detention and questioning by the LTTE and the army. Its comprehensive rejection of credibility appeared to reject the detention evidence, but another passage left it unclear whether some parts had been accepted. Since the history of past detention or suspicion could be relevant to the risk on return, the tribunal assessing that risk needed an opportunity to make clear findings about what had happened, if anything. The credibility assessment therefore had to be reconsidered.
2. Medical evidence. Credibility had to be assessed in the round, and there was no legal error merely in observing that the medical evidence did not itself provide the necessary support for the appellant’s account. However, the tribunal had to explain its rejection of the detailed evidence from Dr Seear concerning the injuries and their likely causation. A single statement that the scars were equally consistent with accidents commonly affecting a rural or agrarian population did not adequately address that evidence.
3. Scope of remission. The rehearing was not confined to updated country information. It had to include a comprehensive assessment of credibility and proper consideration of the medical evidence. The Court of Appeal expressed no view on the eventual outcome. Lord Justices Wall and Richards agreed with Lord Justice Pill’s judgment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 62, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a rehearing including assessment of credibility and medical evidence.
2. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: In decision number AIT No. HX/19862/2004, prepared on 16 January 2006, the tribunal dismissed the appellant’s asylum and human-rights appeals.