Suthananan, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing further submissions as a fresh asylum claim, the decision-maker must consider the new material with the previously considered evidence under anxious scrutiny and ask whether it creates a realistic prospect of success. Country-guidance factors are not a checklist. They must be assessed individually and cumulatively against the facts previously found.

Under the applicable Sri Lankan country guidance, release after payment of a bribe will generally not result in a person being placed on a wanted list, absent a special and credible reason. It was rational to conclude that such a case was not exceptional where the earlier findings did not establish an increased individual risk.

The claimant, a Sri Lankan national, sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh asylum claim. The submissions relied on the country-guidance decision LP (Sri Lanka) [2007] UKIAT 76 and evidence of worsening conditions in Sri Lanka.

Permission was refused on the papers by HHJ Hickinbottom. On renewal, the claimant argued that LP had not been adequately considered, particularly in relation to his alleged release following payment of a bribe. The central issue was whether the further material created a realistic prospect of success in light of the previous findings and the applicable country guidance.

1. The renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The court agreed with HHJ Hickinbottom that the further submissions did not create a realistic prospect of success when considered with the material previously examined.

2. The country guidance in LP (Sri Lanka) [2007] UKIAT 76 required the relevant risk factors to be considered in the light of the individual facts, both separately and cumulatively. It did not operate as a checklist. The claimant’s earlier case had not established that he was recorded as wanted in Sri Lanka or that he was of interest to the authorities.

3. The guidance distinguished escape from custody or bail jumping from release following payment of a bribe. The latter would generally not be recorded as an escape or lead to inclusion on a wanted list. The guidance in PT (Risk – Bribery – Release) Sri Lanka CG [2002] UKIAT 03444, retained and applied through LP, supported that conclusion.

4. In the circumstances, it was rational for the Secretary of State to conclude that the claimant’s case was not exceptional. The decision letter showed no material error of approach or conclusion. The refusal of permission was upheld.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by HHJ Hickinbottom on 24 April 2008. The renewed application was refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).