Mishto v Secretary of State For Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1978 (12 December 2003)

Mishto v Secretary of State For Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 1978 (12 December 2003)

The Adjudicator properly considered the sufficiency of state protection for the appellant in Albania, taking her evidence at face value and applying the Horvath criteria. There was evidence pointing in different directions, but the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof to show insufficient protection. The procedural approach, though unusual, did not result in unfairness or legal error.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1978
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Elenica Mishto; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Asylum, State Protection, Domestic Violence, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Review
Immigration Human Rights Administrative Law Asylum State Protection Domestic Violence European Convention on Human Rights Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elenica Mishto

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator erred in assessing sufficiency of state protection for victims of domestic violence in Albania
  2. 2 Whether the procedural approach adopted by the Adjudicator was unfair
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason

Ratio Decidendi

The Adjudicator properly considered the sufficiency of state protection for the appellant in Albania, taking her evidence at face value and applying the Horvath criteria. There was evidence pointing in different directions, but the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof to show insufficient protection. The procedural approach, though unusual, did not result in unfairness or legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Detailed Assessment of the appellant's costs
  • Costs to be adjourned to the Taxing Master under Section 11 for determination