PP v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

A Tamil woman who is a single head of household in the former conflict areas of northern and north-eastern Sri Lanka may face a real risk of sexual abuse or exploitation by State agents. Risk must be assessed individually and contextually. Relevant increasing factors include isolation, poverty, dependence on State aid or security-force services, and perceived LTTE links. Relevant reducing factors include financial security, independence from such aid, and support from male relatives or neighbours.

Expert evidence must comply strictly with the Senior President of Tribunal’s Practice Direction. An expert’s methodology must be clear from the report or properly explained in a supplementary report.

The appellant, a Tamil national of Sri Lanka, appealed against the refusal of her asylum claim. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that she had been arrested and raped in detention, but dismissed her appeal on the basis that she would not be at risk on return.

The Upper Tribunal previously found an error of law and remade the decision in 2013, again dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration, identifying the need for fuller consideration of the risks faced by female heads of household in militarised Tamil areas.

The remitted appeal concerned whether the appellant’s personal circumstances, including her mental vulnerability, placed her at a real risk of persecutory sexual violence on return to northern Sri Lanka.

1. The appeal was allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was remade so as to allow the appellant’s asylum and Article 3 claims.

2. A Tamil female single head of household in the former conflict zone may be at risk of sexual abuse and exploitation by police, military personnel or paramilitary State agents. The risk assessment is intensely fact-sensitive and must consider both increasing and reducing factors. The increasing factors need not all be present cumulatively.

3. The relevant increasing factors were isolation, low socio-economic status, dependence on Government aid or security-force services, and perceived former LTTE membership, links or sympathies. Reducing factors were higher socio-economic status, limited dependence on such aid or services, and support from male relatives or neighbours. The appellant had all the increasing factors and none of the reducing factors. Her serious PTSD and depression materially increased her vulnerability.

4. The appellant would therefore face a real and substantial risk of sexual abuse and exploitation, including rape, on return to her former home area. She had established a well-founded fear of persecution and was entitled to asylum. On substantially the same facts, she satisfied the country-guidance tests in GJ and Others [2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC), and her Article 3 ECHR claim also succeeded. It was unnecessary to determine humanitarian protection or the separate suicide-risk claim.

5. The Tribunal also held that country experts’ reports must comply fully with the Senior President of Tribunal’s Practice Direction. Methodology must be apparent from the report. If it is absent, a supplementary report with a full explanation is required.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Allowed the appeal on remittal and remade the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to allow the asylum and Article 3 ECHR claims.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the appellant’s appeal by order dated 11 December 2014 and remitted the case to the Upper Tribunal for fresh consideration.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): In a decision dated 24 September 2013, remade the earlier decision and dismissed the appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On 9 May 2012, found an error of law in the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.

• First-tier Tribunal: Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of asylum.