AA (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Medical evidence in an asylum claim that merely shows scarring is consistent with the claimant’s account may be treated as neutral, particularly where the report does not exclude other possible causes. A tribunal must consider the report fairly and in the round, but need not treat it as corroboration or allow it to outweigh otherwise cogent credibility findings. It may assess general credibility after considering the medical evidence where the report has not been excluded or given an adverse explanation and the credibility findings independently rest on inconsistencies with objective evidence. The approach criticised in Mibanga v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 367 is distinguishable where the adjudicator excluded medical evidence altogether or advanced an adverse explanation inconsistent with it.

The appellant, a Sudanese citizen, claimed asylum after travelling through France and Italy. He relied on his Tunjur ethnicity, his work as the personal driver of a senior member of JEM, and an alleged arrest and torture by Sudanese security forces in March 2006. An immigration judge dismissed the claim. On reconsideration, a senior immigration judge considered that the medical evidence had not been satisfactorily addressed and the matter was remitted.

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal subsequently considered medical evidence concerning the appellant’s scars, treated it as not negating the claim, and rejected his account on credibility grounds. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether that treatment of the medical report was legally inadequate and whether the Tribunal was entitled to proceed to its credibility findings.

Buxton LJ refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.

1. Medical evidence. The medical report was prepared by a qualified doctor who explained the nature and possible origins of the scars. Its conclusion was that the scars were consistent with the appellant’s account. Even where some injuries are described with particular detail, evidence of consistency does not necessarily provide positive corroboration, especially where the report does not exclude other possible causes.
2. Assessment in the round. The Tribunal had carefully considered the report in the round. Its conclusion that the report did not negate the claim was open to it and was not an adverse finding against the medical evidence. The Tribunal had therefore not disregarded or excluded the report.
3. Credibility assessment. Once the medical evidence was assessed as neutral, the Tribunal was entitled to consider general credibility. Its adverse findings were independently supported by inconsistencies between the appellant’s account and objective evidence concerning detention in Sudan, the implausibility of his account of escape, and the inconsistency between his alleged escape and claimed prominence within JEM.
4. Mibanga. Mibanga v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 367 was distinguishable. There, the adjudicator had advanced an explanation actively adverse to the medical report and had excluded consideration of the report altogether. Those features were absent here. The report did not have sufficient evidential weight to offset the Tribunal’s otherwise cogent credibility findings.

Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the renewed application for permission to appeal from the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal’s determination.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Considered the medical report and rejected the appellant’s account on credibility grounds. The determination was promulgated, or at least prepared, on 6 July 2007.
• Senior immigration judge on reconsideration: Found that the medical evidence had not been satisfactorily addressed and remitted the matter. The objection that credibility had been assessed before the medical evidence no longer arose; the adequacy of the treatment of the medical evidence remained in issue.
• Immigration judge: Originally dismissed the appellant’s asylum application.