SK (Sri Lanka) v The Secretary of State for theHhome Department

In an asylum appeal, bail jumping is not a standalone refugee or risk category. The tribunal must assess the reason for the earlier detention and the individual’s overall profile, including how any formal bail breach appears in official records and what treatment is likely on return. Country-guidance risk factors are points of focus for related indicators. They must not be elevated into automatic or de facto risk categories, and their relative weight may change with new evidence. An appellate court should intervene only for a material error of law. A tribunal may give limited weight to corrected documentary evidence where the correction remains unexplained and lacks contemporary corroboration.

The appellant, a Sri Lankan Hindu Tamil, claimed asylum after arriving in the United Kingdom. He relied on alleged detention and ill-treatment in Sri Lanka, release on bail, and subsequent failure to report. His initial appeal was dismissed by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. On reconsideration, the only legal error identified was uncertainty about whether the account of detention and release on bail had been accepted. The matter was returned to the same judge, who accepted that the appellant had been detained twice but rejected the claimed basis of the second detention and discounted supporting evidence. The appeal concerned whether the evidential assessment and assessment of risk on return disclosed a material error of law, particularly in light of the country-guidance cases LP and TK.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Laws gave the judgment, and Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Patten agreed.
2. Documentary evidence. The tribunal adequately considered the fresh letter correcting the date of police enquiries. It was entitled to give the evidence less weight because the correction was unexplained, unsupported by contemporary attendance notes or other records, and accompanied by the absence of corroborative evidence from the appellant’s relatives. The author was not available to give oral evidence. There was no error of law in that assessment.
3. Basis of detention. The material before the tribunal supported its finding that the appellant had been arrested and detained because he could not produce appropriate identity or residence documents, rather than because of a genuine suspicion of involvement in bomb plots. That distinction was important in assessing risk on return.
4. Risk assessment. The country-guidance reasoning in LP recognised that formal bail and subsequent non-reporting could create a recorded bail-jumper profile and increase the possibility of identification, but that punishment for bail jumping alone did not establish refugee status. The likely treatment depended on the individual’s profile and the basis of the original detention. The approach in TK required each risk factor to be treated as a point of focus for related indicators, without elevating risk factors into automatic categories, and allowed their significance to be adjusted in light of new evidence.
5. The tribunal considered bail jumping and scarring but was not required to treat either factor as determinative. Applying anxious scrutiny, the Court of Appeal found no material error of law.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 4 November 2010, the appeal against the second-stage reconsideration decision was dismissed. The court found no material error of law.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Designated Immigration Judge Shaerf dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 16 February 2010 following reconsideration. The judge accepted two detentions but rejected the claimed basis of the Colombo detention and found no sufficient risk on return.
• Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: The appellant’s first appeal was dismissed on 6 May 2009. Reconsideration was ordered on 15 July 2009. On 9 November 2009, Senior Immigration Judge Waumsley identified one legal flaw, concerning uncertainty about the treatment of the detention and bail account, while describing the remaining conclusions as safe and sustainable, and returned the matter to the same judge.