Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1863 (17 December 2004)

Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 1863 (17 December 2004)

The adjudicator and tribunal failed to properly assess whether the appellant would remain at risk from Maoists upon return to Nepal as a civilian, particularly whether the Maoists would know he had left the police and whether the authorities could provide sufficient protection. The deficiencies in reasoning require the matter to be reconsidered by a different tribunal.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1863
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rupak Raj Gurung; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Asylum Appeal / Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Refugee Convention, Article 3 ECHR, Sufficiency of Protection, Risk of Persecution
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Refugee Convention Article 3 ECHR Sufficiency of Protection Risk of Persecution

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rupak Raj Gurung

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Asylum Appeal / Appeal From Immigration Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Nepal
  2. 2 Whether the Nepalese authorities can provide sufficient protection to the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator and tribunal properly assessed the risk to the appellant as a civilian

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator and tribunal failed to properly assess whether the appellant would remain at risk from Maoists upon return to Nepal as a civilian, particularly whether the Maoists would know he had left the police and whether the authorities could provide sufficient protection. The deficiencies in reasoning require the matter to be reconsidered by a different tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to be reheard by a different Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  • Costs to be subject to assessment