QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF HALIL SAHIN||(CLAIMANT)|
|THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||(DEFENDANT)|
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR D BEARD appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Friday, 17th January 2003
Crown Copyright ©
"The Tribunal are therefore respectfully requested to await an expert report which has been requested from Marie O'Shea in respect of the appellant regarding the issues of sufficiency of protection and the ability of the appellant to avail himself of internal flight. The report is in the process of being prepared and should be ready at the end of next week".
"I have considered the grounds of appeal in relation to the determination of the Adjudicator and the evidence before her. The burden of proof is upon the applicant and he failed to satisfy the Adjudicator on the evidence that his accepted fear of non-state actors engaged either the Refugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights. In both cases it was her conclusion that there was no satisfactory evidence that the state would not provide such protection as was necessary to avoid the need for internal surrogate protection of the applicant and his family. The applicant does not appear to dispute this because he seeks to bring expert evidence on that issue but there is no claim that such evidence could not have been put before the Adjudicator. There is nothing to show that the expert evidence sought will assist the applicant. The issue is whether it can arguably be said that the decision of the Adjudicator is not sustainable on the basis of the evidence before her. I do not consider that it is realistically so arguable. There is no error of law or of approach on her part and the decision made was properly open to her on the evidence for the reasons that she gives".
"They are the target of the persecution by virtue of their membership of that particular family and for that reason alone".
"There is no evidence that because of the blood feud itself the family would not be able to seek the protection of the state".
"His fears could be taken seriously if there were any objective evidence at all of the level of corruption or influence which he describes anywhere in Turkey. In its absence I can only find that the appellant has, in claiming to be afraid to seek protection, done no more than reduce his claim to uncorroborated allegation, allegation that cannot show any real risk of persecution as claimed".
"Under rule 18(11) of the Immigration and Asylum Act Procedure Rules 2000 the Tribunal is not required to consider the fresh evidence unless it is satisfied that there were good reasons why it was not submitted to the Adjudicator. No good reason has been advanced as to why Marie O'Shea's report was not produced before the Adjudicator".
"(1) An appeal from the determination of an adjudicator may be made only with leave of the Tribunal.
(2) An application for leave to appeal shall be made not later than 10 days, or in the case of an application made from outside the United Kingdom, 28 days, after the appellant has received written notice of the determination against which he wishes to appeal.
(3) A time limit set out in paragraph (2) may be extended by the Tribunal where it is satisfied that because of special circumstances, it is just for the time limit to be extended.
(6) The Tribunal shall not be required to consider any grounds other than those included in that application.
(11) Subject to section 77, where evidence which was not submitted to the Adjudicator is relied upon in an application for leave to appeal, the Tribunal shall not be required to consider that evidence in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal unless it is satisfied that there were good reasons why it was not submitted to the Adjudicator".
"(1) Where the Tribunal has refused an application for leave to appeal, the appellant may apply to the Tribunal to review its decision on the ground that it was wrongly made as a result of an administrative or procedural error by the Tribunal.
(2) An application under paragraph (1) shall --
(a) be made not later than 10 days after written notice of the decision refusing leave to appeal was received by the appellant;
(b) be in writing;
(c) identify all matters relied on; and
(d) be accompanied by copies of all relevant documents.
(3) In addition to its power to review a decision on an application made under paragraph (1), the Tribunal may, of its own motion, if satisfied that the interests of justice so require, not later than 10 days after sending to the appellant notice of its decision, review its decision on the ground that it was wrongly made as a result of an administrative or procedural error by the Tribunal".
"In my judgment, they are right insofar as Ladd v Marshall requires that the evidence could not have been obtained with due diligence. That would be an unjustifiably restrictive approach in this sensitive and difficult jurisdiction".
"We shall forward the grounds of appeal when available".
"If an applicant seeks to rely on any evidence which was not submitted to the Adjudicator, he must include in his application a full explanation of why that evidence was not so submitted. The Tribunal will not in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal consider any such evidence unless satisfied that there are good reasons why it was not submitted to the Adjudicator (rule 18(11)). A decision by an appellant or his representative for whatever reason not to submit the evidence will not normally be regarded as a good reason for not having submitted it. Similarly, if the evidence existed and could by reasonable steps have been submitted, the Tribunal is unlikely to decide that there was a good reason for not submitting it. If no explanation is given, the Tribunal will almost certainly not take the evidence into consideration".
"The applicant does not appear to dispute this because he seeks to bring expert evidence on that issue".
"There is nothing to show that the expert evidence sought will assist the applicant".
"For my part, the natural reading was that the judgment was not before the Vice President".
"Whilst there has been no change of solicitors, there has been a change of personnel within the firm".