Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Gurung v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Court of Appeal found that the adjudicator and tribunal failed to properly assess the ongoing risk to the appellant as a former police officer, the sufficiency of protection available, and whether the Maoists would know of his change in status. The deficiencies in reasoning required the matter to be reconsidered by a different tribunal.

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/immigration 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 on Return
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum Refugee Convention Article 3 ECHR Sufficiency of Protection Risk on Return

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/immigration 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 former police officer targeted by Maoists

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the adjudicator and tribunal failed to properly assess the ongoing risk to the appellant as a former police officer, the sufficiency of protection available, and whether the Maoists would know of his change in status. The deficiencies in reasoning required the matter to be reconsidered by a different tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to be re-heard by a different Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  • Costs to be subject to assessment