MU v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An Article 3 claim based on feared ill-treatment by non-state actors requires a fact-specific assessment of both effective state protection and internal relocation. A tribunal errs in law if it treats those issues as resolved merely because the claimant was attacked in a local area. On appeal, a court may re-make the decision where later country evidence and a fundamental political change have transformed the risk assessment. Here, the overthrow of the government from which the feared risk arose, together with updated country evidence, meant that there was no real risk of serious harm on return. The human-rights appeal was therefore dismissed.

The respondent, a Bangladeshi national, faced deportation following a conviction for rape. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed his protection claim, upheld his exclusion from Refugee Convention protection under section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, but allowed his human-rights claim on the basis of a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment in Bangladesh. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal on 29 February 2024. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the assessment of political-risk evidence and mental-health evidence. The central issues were whether the First-tier Tribunal had failed to address state protection and internal relocation, and whether later political change justified the Court re-making the decision.

Appeal allowed. The decisions of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal were set aside, and the respondent’s human-rights appeal was dismissed.

1. The First-tier Tribunal’s reasoning on the Article 3 claim was legally flawed. The evidence showed no state interest in the respondent. The feared risk was from non-state actors, principally local Awami League activists. In such a case, availability of effective state protection and internal relocation are necessary aspects of the assessment. They must be addressed specifically by reference to the facts of the individual case.
2. The First-tier Tribunal did not address either issue. Its conclusion that protection and relocation were unavailable did not follow from its findings about the respondent’s previous attack in his home area of Sylhet. Even if protection in Sylhet were inadequate, that would not establish a similar risk in an area where the respondent was not known. The Upper Tribunal’s failure to address the same issues was also material.
3. Remittal was unnecessary because the circumstances underlying the claim had fundamentally changed. The Awami League government had been overthrown in August 2024, and a December 2024 country policy note stated that BNP members and supporters were unlikely to face persecution or serious harm. In context, unlikely connoted no real risk. The reference to certification under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 concerned possible risks to Awami League supporters and did not create uncertainty about the risk to BNP members.
4. Using the power under section 14(2) (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Court re-made the decision. The updated evidence gave no reason to suppose that the respondent would face serious harm on return. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the remaining arguments under ground (1) or ground (2).

• First-tier Tribunal: On 12 December 2023, FTT Judge Veloso dismissed the protection appeal but allowed the human-rights appeal on Article 3 grounds.
• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): On 29 February 2024, Upper Tribunal Judge Lane and deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hanbury dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 812, the Court allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal, set aside the tribunal decisions and re-made the decision by dismissing the human-rights appeal.