TG (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In an asylum appeal, an adverse credibility assessment by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will not be disturbed for perversity or insufficient reasoning where its reasoning was open on the evidence and its treatment of supporting material was adequately explained. Expert evidence may properly receive little or no weight where it is vague, anecdotal or lacks essential contextual detail. Material inconsistencies, implausible conduct and forged documents may cumulatively justify rejection of an account. A possible prosecution on return for an ordinary criminal allegation does not itself establish a need for international protection where there is no reasonable likelihood of an unfair hearing and the matter is not political in the usual sense.

The appellant, an Ethiopian national of Oromo ethnicity, claimed international protection based on alleged OLF activity, detention and torture in 1995, continuing clandestine activity, and later suspicion by the Ethiopian authorities. The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, on reconsideration, rejected his account and gave little or no weight to several expert and supporting witnesses. It also concluded that any prosecution arising from a 2002 incident at Nairobi airport would be dealt with fairly and was not political.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Laws LJ. The appellant renewed his application before the Court of Appeal, alleging perversity and insufficiency of reasoning in the Tribunal’s findings. The central issues were whether those complaints disclosed an arguable legal error and whether the possible prosecution engaged a need for international protection.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay gave the substantive judgment and Lord Justice Keene agreed. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused, and the application was dismissed.

1. The proposed grounds all amounted to allegations of perversity or insufficient reasoning. The AIT was entitled to reject the appellant’s account of his alleged 1995 detention and torture. Its reasoning that such treatment was difficult to reconcile with his return to employment, apparent security and prospect of promotion at the state airline was open to it.
2. The AIT was also entitled to find that Dr Trueman’s evidence provided no real support for the account. The evidence concerned one unidentified person and did not specify that person’s role, the reason for detention, or when and for how long the detention occurred. It was therefore properly regarded as vague and little more than anecdotal. Semantic disputes about the Tribunal’s wording were immaterial.
3. The AIT correctly identified an inconsistency in the appellant’s accounts concerning alleged beating on the soles of his feet. The matter was absent from his interview and SEF statement, although mentioned later in a statement prepared for the hearing. The AIT was entitled to treat the medical evidence in that context.
4. The Tribunal’s rejection of the appellant’s account of prolonged clandestine OLF meetings, its findings concerning the Nairobi airport incident and forged airline letter, and its scepticism about the OLF official’s evidence were all adequately reasoned. Its explanations for attaching little or no weight to the experts and other witnesses did not disclose legal error.
5. The possible prosecution on return concerned an alleged criminal offence. The AIT found no reasonable likelihood that the appellant would be denied a fair hearing. Since the matter was not political in the usual sense, it did not create a need for international protection.

None of the grounds had a real prospect of success.

• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: On reconsideration, the Tribunal rejected the appellant’s account and dismissed his international protection claim (AIT No. HX/03493/2005).
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Laws LJ refused permission to appeal on the papers. Maurice Kay LJ and Keene LJ refused the renewed application and dismissed it.