LN (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Permission to appeal may properly be granted where an asylum tribunal’s assessment of credibility raises serious concerns about its treatment of trauma, interview evidence, terminology and potentially corroborative documents. Screening interviews and later asylum interviews should be assessed with regard to their different purposes and the possible effects of trauma. A document accepted as genuine and capable of supporting an account should receive proper consideration. Credibility should not be undermined by semantic distinctions or by treating documentary evidence as insignificant solely because it came through a family member or was registered late.

The appellant, a Zimbabwean national, appealed from a decision of the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal in appeal number AA/034548/2008. She challenged reliance on a pre-claim statement and the tribunal’s application of RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083.

The Court of Appeal considered concerns about the treatment of screening and formal interviews, the effect of alleged trauma on inconsistent evidence, the use of the term gangsters, and the weight given to a genuine death certificate relating to the appellant’s sister. The central issue was whether these matters justified permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Ward granted permission because the tribunal’s treatment of the evidence raised substantial concerns, notwithstanding the absence of full argument, the appellant’s personal appearance and the respondent’s non-attendance. The court did not determine the substantive merits of the asylum claim.
2. The tribunal appeared to draw a distinction between screening interviews and more formal interviews without applying the same relevant approach to the reliability of the evidence. That was disconcerting. The possible effect of trauma on the reliability of an explanation, including confusion and flashbacks, required careful consideration.
3. The court was troubled by an adverse credibility finding based on the appellant’s description of the assailants as gangsters. A semantic distinction between criminal hooligans and political hooligans in Zimbabwe should not itself carry material adverse weight.
4. The death certificate had been accepted as entirely genuine and was capable of corroborating the appellant’s account. It should not have been peremptorily dismissed merely because the information came from the appellant’s brother or because registration of the death had been delayed. The tribunal should have considered the document in its Zimbabwean context.
5. The ground concerning RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG could not be assessed because the court did not have that decision and could not determine what it said. The challenge concerning admission of the pre-claim statement appeared difficult, as previously identified by Hooper LJ.
6. A copy of the judgment was directed to be prepared at public expense. The Legal Services Commission was invited to reconsider legal aid. There was leave to amend the grounds if counsel, on reinstruction, considered the death-certificate point meritorious. The appeal was directed to be heard by a court of three, including a High Court judge if appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on appeal from the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal, granted permission to appeal and gave directions for the substantive appeal.
• Asylum & Immigration Tribunal: decision in appeal no AA/034548/2008, challenged on the grounds concerning the pre-claim statement, credibility assessment and application of RN (Returnees) Zimbabwe CG [2008] UKAIT 00083.