QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF AHMED HARWAN MOHAMMED HUSSEIN||(CLAIMANT)|
|IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL||(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 BROADFOOT appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"I do not think that it can be said that the appellant has been, by virtue of the detentions, persecuted -- or that there is a real risk that he will be persecuted in the future. I do not consider that the police would have been so readily prepared to release the appellant if he had been of serious or continuous interest to them".
"I note that the appellant did not leave the country immediately after the first claimed act of torture and I have concluded, in the light of all the evidence, that there is no serious possibility that the appellant was tortured within the meaning of the Convention, although I accept that he may, during his short repeated periods of detention, have been the subject of adverse attention from ill-disciplined officers, falling short of torture. However, I do not accept, even to the lowest standard, that the appellant would be arrested and detained, time after time, and not charged, and always released after a short period of detention on payment of a bribe, if he were of high interest or importance, or a person at real risk of serious harm".
"The Adjudicator accepted that the applicant had been detained for short periods from time to time after specific incidents. He was not satisfied that these detentions amounted to persecution or indicated that there was a real risk that he would be persecuted in the future. He was not satisfied that the applicant had been tortured within the meaning of the Convention but accepted that he may have been the subject of adverse attention from ill-disciplined officers, falling short of torture ...
In my view the grounds ignore the findings of the Adjudicator that the applicant had not been tortured whilst in detention. The issue for him was whether there was a risk of persecution or torture on return ...
In substance the grounds challenge the Adjudicator's findings of fact and his assessment of credibility but they do not satisfy me that there is a real prospect that his findings will be reversed or set aside by the Tribunal".
"This stretches credulity and is inherently implausible to a high degree; such as I consider that this appellant's claim is not seriously possible".