QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ABRAHIM RAHIMI||(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 PARISHI PATEL (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
"Due to a great deal of complaints by our noble compatriots and the esteemed residents of the city of Kabul, Colonel Hussain Ali, who was working as an employee of the Ministry of Interior during the government of Dr Najibullah, the government of Mr Rabbani, and the government of Taliban. During his service for the governments at the time, he did his best to suppress and destroy the innocent people of the area wrecking the lives of our noble and innocent compatriots. His son, Abrahim Rahimi, is also assisting him by all means in the suppression and destruction of our innocent compatriots. So the Colonel was arrested and prosecuted for his actions. Our dear and noble compatriots are being informed that if they are aware of the whereabouts of his son, Abrahim and other members of his family, they have to inform the nearest police authorities so that appropriate measures could be taken for their arrest and Abrahim could also be prosecuted for his actions."
It has to be mentioned that the photographs of the father and son are published at the top of this notice.
"... the authenticity of any documents submitted will therefore be questioned, given the adjudicator's findings on your client's credibility. However, it is noted that the news article calls for your client to be handed to the security authorities so that he can be brought before the law... considered that even if this document were found to be genuine, your client would face prosecution in Afghanistan, as opposed to persecution. It is not therefore accepted that you had put forward any credible evidence to suggest that your client's situation is an exceptional one which could lead to a reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution or to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights."
"When a human rights or asylum claim has been refused in any appeal relating to that claim is no longer pending, the decision maker will consider any further submissions and if rejected will then determine whether they amount to a fresh claim. The submissions will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material which has been previously been considered. The submissions will only be significantly different if the content;
1) Had not already been considered;
2) Taken together with the previously considered material created a realistic prospect of success, notwithstanding its rejection."
The realistic prospect of success test is a low one. It really amounts to little more than there is a reasonable chance that the claim might succeed.
"It is for the Secretary of State to decide if a fresh claim has been made, subject to Wednesbury Review. Although some authorities suggest that where evidence of a relevant and substantial change in circumstances or new evidence is advanced which could not reasonably have been advanced earlier, the Secretary of State is obliged to entertain the new claim whatever the reasons for rejecting the previous one, unless the new evidence is not credible or is not capable of producing a different outcome."
That is based upon the decision of Sedley J in R v Secretary of State ex-parte Habibi  391, coupled with the approval of that decision by the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Beybeyi reported in the same volume of the Immigration Appeal Reports at page 491.