IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Internal relocation — Claimant seeking protection in United Kingdom on humanitarian grounds — Claimant having been subjected to harsh and degrading treatment in country of origin — Relocation in country of origin inadequate to protect claimant — Tribunal failing to consider claimant’s particular case — Whether claimant entitled to humanitarian protection — Refugee Or Person In Need Of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2525)

AA (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2008] EWCA Civ 579; [2008] WLR (D) 170

CA:(Buxton, Carnwath and Lloyd): 22 May 2008

Although the decisions of an expert tribunal established by Parliament should be fully respected, if its decisions to enforce deportation orders were to inflict indignity and constitute humanitarian disrespect on claimants seeking permission to remain in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeal would use its supervisory function to revisit those decisions as constituting an error of law.

The Court of Appeal so stated when allowing an appeal AA (Uganda) from the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”), dated 26 July 2007, dismissing her claim to remain in the United Kingdom under arts 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and quashing the order for her deportation.

The claimant, born in 1986, had been subjected to degrading and inhuman treatments after her parents had been killed in Uganda and was brought here by her aunt. It was submitted that if she returned there she would be subjected to prostitution.

BUXTON LJ distinguished the the present case from the factual scenario in AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 3 WLR 832. On the evidence accepted by the AIT AA was faced not merely with poverty and lack of accommodation, but with being driven into prostitution. Even if that was the likely fate of many of her fellow countrymen his Lordship could not think that either the AIT or the House (in AH (Sudan) would have felt able to regard enforced prostitution as coming within the category of normal country conditions that the refugee had to be expected to put up with. There had to be some conditions in the place of relocation that were unacceptable to the extent that it would be unduly harsh to return the applicant to them even if the conditions were widespread in the place of relocation. The present case called for an inquiry as to whether conditions in Kampala fell into that category. In not addressing that inquiry the AIT acted irrationally and its determination could not stand. It fell to Court of Appeal to revisit the tribunal’s decision. Relying only on the evidence before the AIT, his Lordship would hold that it would be unduly harsh to return her. The case was one of humanitarian protection, and not of asylum. The serious harm against which humanitarian protection was available included degrading treatment. The AIT misdirected itself in law both in respect to whether returns generally of unaccompanied women to Kampala would be unduly harsh and in respect of whether, even if the AIT was correct on that point, it would be unduly harsh to return AA in her particular circumstances to Kampala. Either of those errors taken separately required the Court of Appeal to intervene. The AIT determination should be quashed and substituted with a decision that AA could not be reasonably expected to stay in Kampala.

CARNWATH LJ and LLOYD LJ delivered judgments concurring in the result.

Appearances: Peter Morris (Kingston and Richmond Law Centre) for the claimant; Miss Claire Weir (Solicitor to HM Treasury) for the Secretary of State.

Reported by: Ken Mydeen, barrister