QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ADNAN ERDOGAN||(CLAIMANT)|
|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)
MISS K GALLAFENT appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Tuesday, 25th February 2003
Crown Copyright ©
(1) He suffered general hostility and three days' solitary confinement during his military service.
(2) He was arrested on 1st September 2001 when attending a demonstration, and detained three days and ill-treated during that period because of his perceived association with illegal Kurdish organisations.
(3) The ill-treatment that he suffered was indeed serious, but he had no marks or scars because the police were very clever in their torture methods.
(4) He did, however, have bruises on his hand.
(5) On his release without charge, the police told him that they were going to supervise and monitor him. He did not return home.
(6) His home was raided on 24th and 27th October 2001.
(7) He left Turkey illegally about a month later.
(8) Since he left, his family have told him that it would be unsafe for him to return.
(9) His father had been politically active with the PSK and his uncles and aunts had also been involved.
"20. In the light of all the above matters, I regret to say I do not find the appellant to be a credible witness. Although his account has been consistent and may well be plausible, I regret to say that I am unable to accept it as true. In my view, the appellant has had some knowledge of the sort of matters relied on in support of an application for asylum, and has fabricated an account in support of his own claim. There are simply too many matters, referred to above, which I am unable to accept. In these circumstances, the appellant has failed to satisfy me that he was persecuted for any Convention reason prior to his departure from Turkey.
21. It is conceded that, if I found the appellant's account to be true, he would be at risk. It seems to me that the corollary must apply. Although the appellant told me that the family was known as politically motivated, he also claimed that the family had received regular visits from the police. However, apart from visits, the appellant did not seek to put before me any evidence that the family in Turkey had suffered problems from the authorities. The appellant sought to rely upon the fact that his uncles in the United Kingdom had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as refugees, and that some at least of these relatives were sympathisers of the PSK. However, I note that the letter relied upon concerning his uncle Muslum Dogan is dated 1st September 1997, and I was told that that uncle had in fact left Turkey some 11 years previously. I simply have no information concerning the circumstances of that uncle's claim, but in view of the time factor, I cannot see that that assists the appellant in the slightest. Rejecting, as I do, the appellant's account, I am unable to accept that he was involved in politics in any way so as to be of adverse interest to the authorities. If he returns to Turkey, he may face routine questioning, and possibly detention, whilst his details are checked. However, in all the circumstances, the appellant has failed to satisfy me to the necessary standard that he would be at risk from the authorities in circumstances sufficient to amount to persecution by reason of any Convention reason. Accordingly, on asylum grounds, this appeal is dismissed.
22. It must follow, in view of my findings above, that Human Rights issues and asylum issues essentially stand or fall together. A number of Articles are relied upon in the application appeal, but, in the light of my findings, and with the exception of Article 8, which I will address separately, I cannot see that there is any serious risk of the appellant's rights under any of the Articles being breached if he were to return to Turkey".
"I can find no arguable merit in the grounds of appeal. The Adjudicator found that the applicant was not a credible witness. On the evidence this conclusion was open to him. I am surprised that the respondent's counsel conceded that if the applicant's account of events was true he was entitled to succeed. Whilst some concessions would bind the Adjudicator this would not. The Adjudicator was under a duty to reach his own conclusions. The Adjudicator said that the applicant was largely or broadly consistent, not entirely consistent. He went on to refer to important inconsistencies. There is no reason why an account of events should not be in line with country information but still incredible. The Adjudicator's conclusion that the applicant's account of events was largely consistent and plausible in the light of the country information but still not credible does not indicate that he applied the incorrect burden or standard of proof. Consistency and plausibility are always important factors but not necessarily determinative".
3. The appeal does not have a real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard".