MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This appeal concerns the assessment of the impact of lies told to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) on an asylum claim based on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant, a Somali national, was found not to have told the truth about his links in Mogadishu, and the AIT dismissed his appeal on the basis that he had not discharged the burden of proof. The Court of Appeal held that the AIT had adopted the wrong approach in dismissing the appeal because the appellant had told lies and that the AIT had failed to take into account a material factor in reaching their conclusion. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the AIT had not adopted the wrong approach in their assessment of the impact of the appellant’s lies and that there was no error of law in their determination which warranted interference by the Court of Appeal. The Court emphasised the need for the appellate court to approach appeals from specialist tribunals with an appropriate degree of caution, and to correct errors of law rather than to disagree with the tribunal’s assessment of the facts. The Court held that the AIT had correctly identified the burden of proof as resting on the appellant and had dismissed the appeal because he had not discharged that burden. The Court also held that the AIT had not failed to take into account the fact that the appellant had been in custody or detention for 12 years, and that it was not inevitable that this fact would have prevented him from maintaining or developing the necessary protective links. The Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal.