EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION |
|
Lord OsborneLord EassieLady Paton |
[2007] CSIH 83XA159/06 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD OSBORNE in APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
TO APPEAL under section 103(B) of
the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 by S.H.A.P. Applicant; against SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent: _______ |
Act: Forrest; Drummond Miller (Appellant)
Alt: Miss Carmichael; Office of Advocate General (Respondent)
[1] The applicant,
in this application for permission to appeal under section 103(B) of the
Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002, applied for asylum in the
[2] Her
application was refused by a letter from the Home Office dated
[3] In the
present application for permission to appeal, several grounds have been
advanced upon the basis of which it has been contended that the determination
of
[4] The submission
made for the applicant was essentially that judge Wallace had misapprehended
the issues that she had had to determine and had ignored material relevant to
their proper determination. In
particular it was argued that her determination was misconceived, in that she
had confined her attention to two facets of the case only: (1) the video recording allegedly taken of the
applicant in the commission of adultery, and, (2) the summonses said to have
been issued shortly after the applicant had left Iran on or about 8 November
2004. It was submitted that these were
only two of several factors that should have been considered in determining the
issue of whether, were the applicant returned to
[5] Having
considered the decision of judge Wallace dated
"The appellant claims to be at risk
if returned to
We consider that that narrow formulation of the applicant's
case is erroneous. That case, and its
much wider scope, can be seen from what is set forth in the background and
evidence in the appeal described in paragraphs 7 and the following
paragraphs of the determination. Having
narrated the numerous points set out in that part of the determination, the
judge appears to us then to ignore all them, save the points referred to in
paragraph 40. In paragraph 44 of her
determination the judge concludes that the video referred to was "the only
evidence whereby the appellant could be prosecuted in
[6] In all these
circumstances we shall grant permission to appeal and allow the appeal,
remitting the case to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for
reconsideration. We shall also make a
direction under Rule 31(4)(b) of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules 2005 to the following effect: (1)
the findings that the applicant is a married woman and that she commenced an adulterous
relationship with a man M.M. in about 2001 should not be disturbed; (2) the reconsideration should embrace
consideration of all the circumstances disclosed in the applicant's evidence,
including, in particular, the contents of paragraphs 13 to 16 of the decision
of judge Wallace and (3) the reconsideration should have regard to the whole
contents of the Enayat report dated 24 May 2006.