British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >>
Serunkuma v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 41 (12 January 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/41.html
Cite as:
[2001] EWCA Civ 41
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
|
|
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Civ 41 |
|
|
C/2000/3066 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
|
|
Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Friday, 12th January 2001 |
|
|
|
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN
____________________
|
JOHN PAUL SERUNKUMA |
Appellant |
|
- v - |
|
|
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT |
Respondent |
____________________
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
MR Y SERUGO-LUGO (instructed by John Itsagwede & Co, London SE15 4TL) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not attend and was unrepresented
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 12th January 2000
- LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: This is an application for permission to appeal made by Mr Serunkuma. He wishes to appeal a decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. That tribunal had dismissed an appeal from a decision of a special adjudicator in a political asylum case. The applicant comes from Uganda and, on the finding of the special adjudicator, was very badly manhandled in prison in Uganda. The adjudicator said in the penultimate paragraph of his decision that he accepted that the applicant was arrested on 20th June 1994 and detained because of his dealings with the Lord's Resistance Army and that he was ill-treated. He however rejected the appellant's explanation as to how the appellant came to be removed from prison and subsequently travelled to the United Kingdom.
- What the appellant had said was that he got out of prison on 3rd July 1994 and obtained a passport on 15th July. He said that he had contacted a man called Matthew, who was a Kenyan, and that Matthew had provided him with a false passport. He said that when he was taken from prison he was put in an army Land Rover, he was later removed from the Land Rover when two others with him were shot. He said he was scared. He said he was then taken to Tororo where he met his uncle, and that the people who took him from prison were not the same as those who had beaten him up in prison, they were different soldiers from another barracks. That explanation for the appellant's exit from prison was rejected by the special adjudicator. The special adjudicator went on to say:
"I regard the appellant as a fugitive from justice rather than a fugitive from persecution."
- It seems that the potential crime of which he might be accused if he came back was of providing food to the Lord's Resistance Army. That was the position of the special adjudicator. However, the tribunal says in paragraph 9 of its decision that the adjudicator, having rejected the escape story, it would follow, as a matter of logic, that the appellant had been released, and that, given his low level claimed activities the adjudicator's conclusion that he would be of little interest was valid. It seems to me arguable that there is the illogicality in this which Mr Serugo-Lugo claims, in the sense that the adjudicator concluded that he might be prosecuted, and yet the Immigration Appeal Tribunal appeared to work on the basis that the adjudicator had concluded that he would be of little interest.
- I do not as at present regard this appeal as having a high prospect of success; but it does seem to me one, bearing in mind the potential interest of the applicant at stake and his past experience of torture, as one which is suitable for hearing by a court of two Lords Justices. I will grant permission. I will extend the time for permission to appeal. The reasons for that extension have been explained to me. If the papers are pre-read the decision of the case should not take more than one and a half hours. I direct that the appellant prunes the bundle and makes its references correspond with his skeleton arguments.
(Application granted; order for legal aid assessment).