Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/05259/2016

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 20 January 2017
On 10 February 2017

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS

Between

s g
(Anonymity direction made)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
Representation:
For the Appellant: Ms C Proudman, Counsel instructed by Krisnith Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr P Singh, Home Office Presenting Officer
DECISION AND REASONS
1. Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 I make an order prohibiting the disclosure or publication of any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the respondent. Breach of this order can be punished as a contempt of court. I make this order because of the need for extreme caution in international protection cases.
2. This is an appeal by a female citizen of Sri Lanka against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing her appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State that she was not entitled to international protection.
3. I do not intend to deal with every point that can be made. The point of real substance here is the First-tier Tribunal's consideration of a medical report prepared by Dr Lawrence. Dr Lawrence is a qualified psychiatrist who has given very detailed consideration to complaints and symptoms presented by this particular appellant. Dr Lawrence has concluded emphatically that the evidence before him points to the appellant suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and, significantly, he draws a distinction between harm done to the appellant by growing up in the difficult conditions that existed in Sri Lanka in her youth and a particular incident that she said that happened to her when she was humiliated and assaulted sexually.
4. Dr Lawrence was clearly satisfied that the appellant had been sexually assaulted as alleged and that led to symptoms of trauma which presented before him. It is a case where he is at pains to set out that the symptoms were positively physical. There was a change in heart rate and a change in skin clamour which were objectively observable.
5. The First-tier Tribunal Judge was clearly aware of these differences but was unpersuaded by the finding that there were two separate causes and decided that all of the symptoms were attributable to the general difficulties of growing up in that environment. The judge gave some reasons for that. The judge was particularly concerned by the late disclosure of the claim of sexual assault, recognising that there may well have been reasons for some delay but not understanding why the claim was not made a lot sooner than they were.
6. I do not find that satisfactory. People who have been the victim of sexual assault, usually women, are often very loathe to expose themselves to the questioning and reliving of the experience which is necessary if they choose to tell about their experiences. It is dangerous to assume that there is a bad motive for delay and to assume instead that there might not be a very good reason for holding out until the last possible moment in telling the story.
7. It is quite clear to me that proper reasons have not been given for rejecting Dr Lawrence's evidence and Mr Singh accepted that the reasoning was not adequate.
8. Where there was some difference in the parties is about the proper way forward. Mr Singh suggested that I should remake the decision and dismiss the appeal effectively giving better reasons than were given by the First-tier Judge for departing from Dr Lawrence's opinion.
9. It may be right to dismiss the appeal but that is a decision that should be reached after proper consideration of all of the evidence by way of fresh hearing. The hearing was not satisfactorily because expert evidence has been rejected for improper reasons.
10. I make it plain that I am not suggesting that the outcome ought to be that the appeal is dismissed. I merely recognise that that is one possibility
11. The outcome of the appeal before me is that the appeal is allowed and I direct that the case be heard again in the First-tier Tribunal where one hopes that a proper decision will be reached on all of the evidence.

Signed

Jonathan Perkins
Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Dated 9 February 2017