E v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2006] EWCA Civ 1411 (21 July 2006)

E v Secretary of State for the Home Office [2006] EWCA Civ 1411 (21 July 2006)

The immigration judge committed a material error of law by failing to assess the risk to the appellant if he returned to Sudan and continued his low-level DUP activities, in the context of his previous detentions and ill-treatment. This failure rendered the decision unsafe and necessitated remittal for redetermination.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1411
Parties
Claimant/appellant: E; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Asylum Appeal / Appeal From the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Tribunal to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Asylum, Risk on Return, Credibility Assessment, Article 2 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Risk on Return Credibility Assessment Article 2 ECHR Article 3 ECHR

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Office

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the immigration judge erred in law in assessing the risk to the appellant on return to Sudan given his past detentions and political activities with the DUP
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider the risk arising from the appellant's family members' political activities

Ratio Decidendi

The immigration judge committed a material error of law by failing to assess the risk to the appellant if he returned to Sudan and continued his low-level DUP activities, in the context of his previous detentions and ill-treatment. This failure rendered the decision unsafe and necessitated remittal for redetermination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for redetermination in light of existing findings of fact and up-to-date in-country evidence