FG (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In asylum appeals, expert medical evidence concerning trauma must be considered as part of the fact-finder’s overall assessment of credibility. A tribunal must not decide credibility solely from the claimant’s account and then ask whether expert evidence should reverse that conclusion. However, an expert report does not compel acceptance of the account or displace the tribunal’s fact-finding function. A tribunal may reject the account after considering the report, objective country evidence and cross-examination, provided its conclusion is open on the evidence and discloses no material error of law. The approach in Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 367 was applied.

FG, a Turkish Kurd, appealed after the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, on reconsideration, dismissed her challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal of asylum. Her claim relied on alleged association with the PKK, detention, ill-treatment and sexual abuse, supported by Dr Garwood’s report diagnosing post-traumatic stress disorder and other symptoms.

Permission to appeal was confined to whether the tribunal had improperly dealt with the report after making adverse credibility findings. The appeal was filed about eight months late because the solicitors misunderstood the procedural requirement. The Court of Appeal considered the merits on the footing that time would be extended if the appeal warranted it.

Decision

1. The application to extend time was refused. The solicitors’ mistaken belief that the tribunal would provide an appeal date was an entirely inadequate explanation for the substantial delay. The court nevertheless considered the merits because the appellant was not personally responsible for the delay and time would have been extended if the appeal had merit.
2. The tribunal had not fallen into the error identified in Mibanga [2005] EWCA Civ 367. That authority requires expert evidence concerning trauma to be considered within the overall credibility assessment, rather than considered only after the claimant’s account has already been rejected.
3. The tribunal expressly stated, in paragraphs 18 and 27, that it had considered Dr Garwood’s report in the context of its assessment of credibility. The report was therefore not simply disregarded because of the adverse credibility findings.
4. The report had to be taken into account, particularly given Dr Garwood’s experience, but it did not compel acceptance of the appellant’s evidence. His assessment was based on more limited material than that available to the tribunal. It could not usurp the tribunal’s fact-finding function.
5. The tribunal was entitled to assess the appellant’s entire account against the objective evidence concerning conditions in Turkey and, more importantly, the account’s performance under cross-examination. Its conclusion was open to it on the evidence and disclosed no material error of law. The appeal consequently had no merit, and the application to extend time was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2008] EWCA Civ 1390, the court considered the merits of the proposed appeal but refused the application to extend time.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — On reconsideration, the tribunal dismissed FG’s appeal against the refusal of asylum. The tribunal decision is identified as AIT No AA/13421/2005; no further citation is stated in the judgment.