SB (Trinidad & Tobago) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In assessing whether a person facing serious harm from a persistent and dangerous former partner can obtain sufficient protection, the decision-maker must evaluate the individual risk and the practical effectiveness of protection in the circumstances. The existence of shelters or services designed for victims of ordinary domestic abuse does not necessarily address the risk posed by a criminal gang leader who has repeatedly located and harmed the victim. An omission to refer expressly to such facilities is immaterial where, on the evidence, it could not have affected the conclusions on sufficiency of protection or internal relocation.

The appellant, a national of Trinidad and Tobago, claimed humanitarian protection under paragraph 339C of the Immigration Rules because of the risk posed by her former partner. An Immigration Judge accepted her account, found that the authorities had been unwilling or unable to protect her, and concluded that internal relocation would not remove the risk. The Secretary of State challenged that decision. Senior Immigration Judge Freeman found an error of law and ordered reconsideration. The reconsideration produced an adverse decision, which the Secretary of State accepted should be remitted. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Immigration Judge had erred in law by failing expressly to refer to a United States report mentioning eight shelters for battered women.

1. Appeal allowed. The Secretary of State accepted that the reconsideration decision was susceptible to appeal and should be sent back for reconsideration. The appellant argued that the original Immigration Judge had made no error of law, so that her decision should stand.
2. The Immigration Judge had asked the correct question: whether, on return to the appellant’s home area, there would be a sufficiency of protection. She had accepted that the former partner was a criminal and gang leader involved in drug dealing and kidnappings, that he was determined to find the appellant, and that previous reports to the police and judicial authorities had not secured protection.
3. She had also considered internal relocation. The appellant had previously tried to relocate but had repeatedly been found. Given the former partner’s character and the size and population of Trinidad and Tobago, the judge was entitled to conclude that the risk of death or serious injury would not be diminished by relocation.
4. The failure to refer specifically to the eight shelters did not amount to an error of law. Shelters capable of offering some protection to victims of ordinary domestic abuse would have had no material impact on the assessment of this particular risk. The omission therefore could not have affected the decision.
5. Lord Justice Tomlinson agreed that the reasons showed a conclusion that the appellant would be unsafe wherever she relocated within Trinidad and Tobago. Lord Justice Jacob agreed with both judgments. Order: application granted; appeal allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2010] EWCA Civ 1165: appeal allowed. The court held that the Immigration Judge had not erred in law by failing expressly to refer to the shelters.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal — the Secretary of State challenged the Immigration Judge’s decision; Senior Immigration Judge Freeman found an error of law and ordered reconsideration. The reconsideration produced an adverse decision, which the Secretary of State accepted should be remitted for reconsideration.