Can political asylum seekers be expected to hide their political opinions?

13 August 2010 by

Expected to show him support?

TM (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916 – Read judgment

Is it reasonable to expect an asylum seeker on their return to their home country to lie about their political beliefs and thereby avoid persecution? This question was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in light of a potentially wide-ranging decision of the Supreme Court relating to gay refugees.

Last month the Supreme Court held in HJ (Iran ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 that to compel a homosexual person to pretend that their sexuality does not exist is to deny him his fundamental right to be who he is (see our post). When an applicant applies for asylum on the ground of a well-founded fear of persecution because he is gay, if the tribunal concludes that a material reason for his living discreetly on his return would be a fear of the persecution which would follow if he were to live openly as a gay man, then his application should be accepted [para 82].

Unsurprisingly, asylum seekers, and those representing them, are now seeking to use the principle at the heart of HJ to other grounds covered by the Convention, not just sexual orientation cases. In the recent Court of Appeal case of TM (Zimbabwe) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 916, Elias LJ considered such an argument in the context of three Zimbabweans who were claiming asylum because of a risk of persecution on the basis of their political opinions were they to be returned.

One of the arguments pursued by the appellants was based the reasoning in HJ. Just as in that case, a gay person could not be required voluntarily to conceal that orientation, or act ‘discreetly’, and thereby avoid persecution, so was it submitted that an asylum seeker cannot be expected to lie about his political opinions in order to avoid persecution. The AIT should therefore assume that an asylum seeker will tell the truth about his political views when questioned in his home country about them. This is of obvious relevance in the context of Zimbabwe, where anyone unable to demonstrate loyalty to the ruling Zanu PF party is presently considered at risk of persecution.

Elias LJ, giving the only reasoned judgment of the court, found it was not necessary for this argument to be resolved for the purposes of these appeals (which were dismissed), so “a determination of this important question will have to await another day”. But his comments, in paragraphs 31-42, indicate what the future lines of argument may be following HJ.

First, he accepted that the ratio of HJ is not limited just to sexual orientation cases, but will apply to all grounds covered by the Convention [38]. It would undermine the object of the Convention if the signatory countries required individuals to modify their beliefs or opinions or to hide their race, nationality or membership of particular social groups.

Second, however, he doubted that the principle enunciated in HJ would be as far-reaching as submitted. Rather, much would depend on the importance of the right concerned to the individual. It is one thing for a gay person to be compelled to deny a crucial aspect of his identity, his sexuality, affecting his whole way of life, as in HJ. But it is another for a person whose political interests or activities are of marginal interests to their lives to be expected to be less than frank with, in this case, the Zimbabwean authorities. In this, Elias LJ cites the reasoning of Sir John Dyson in HJ [para114], and observes “if the proposed action giving rise to the persecution is at the core of a human right, the individual is entitled to persist in it notwithstanding the consequences; he is not required to be discreet. However, if the proposed action is at the margins, persistence in the activity in the face of the threatened harm is not a situation of being persecuted and does not attract protection.”

But drawing a principled distinction between the circumstances where a person can legitimately be expected to lie to avoid persecution, and those such as HJ when they cannot be, may well prove difficult. When is a matter at the ‘core’ of a human right, and when is it ‘at the margins’? Is a person’s desire to express his sexuality openly of greater or less importance than another’s wish to express his political views? Although such issues did not need to be decided in TM (Zimbabwe), there can be little doubt that they will arise for determination in further cases soon. The full ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in HJ may not be evident for some time yet.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: