Asylum seeker’s lies relevant to outcome of claim, says Supreme Court

25 November 2010 by

MA (Somalia) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2010] UKSC 49. Read judgment

Update,  26 November – Rosalind English’s case comment is here

The following report is based on the press summary provided by the Supreme Court.

The issues raised in this appeal were: (1) the correct approach to the relevance of lies told by an asylum seeker in the assessment of real risk of persecution on return to his or her country of origin; and (2) how far it is legitimate for an appeal court to interfere with the assessment of facts made by a specialist tribunal on the grounds of error of law.

MA, a member of the Somali Isaaq clan, entered the UK illegally on 24 May 1995. He claimed asylum which was refused but he was granted exceptional leave to remain. In 1998 he was convicted of rape and indecency with a child and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. On 21 May 2002, the Secretary of State for the Home Department served him with notice of intention to make a deportation order. Following a series of failed appeals and fresh submissions, the Secretary of State made a deportation order on 5 April 2004 and removal directions were set.

In 2008 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (“AIT”) heard evidence on a fresh asylum claim by MA, directed to the issue whether, as a member of the Isaaq clan, he would be able to arrange protection against a real risk of physical violence if returned to Mogadishu. The AIT concluded that MA had not told the truth about his links and circumstances in Mogadishu, and could not say that he had shown he would be at risk there contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal allowed MA’s appeal on the grounds that the AIT seemed “to be throwing up their hands in despair” and saying that “since [MA] has concealed the truth, they cannot make any relevant findings”, and that had the AIT made an assessment, “they must have concluded that there was a real risk that he would not obtain the relevant protection”, having regard to the lengthy period he had been in the UK, including 12 years in prison.


Secretary of State’s appeal allowed. The AIT did not err in their assessment of MA’s lies and there was no error of law which warranted interference by the Court of Appeal. The Court recognised the difficulties facing the AIT in distinguishing truth from lies. A particular problem arises where, as in MA’s case, the AIT has disbelieved the majority of the claimant’s evidence, but there is objective evidence indicating that the majority of individuals with the characteristics of, or alleged by, the claimant would be at risk if returned to the home state. The Court of Appeal were faced with this problem in  [GM (Eritrea) [2008] EWCA Civ 833.   Where the claimant’s account is rejected as incredible, he or she will only succeed where there is undisputed objective evidence which goes a long way to making good the shortcomings in the claimant’s own evidence. This, in essence, is what Laws LJ meant in para 54 of his judgment in GM (Eritrea).

The weight a lie has in each case is fact-sensitive. In some cases, the AIT may conclude that the lie is of no great significance. In others, where, for example, the appellant tells lies on a central issue in the case, the AIT may conclude that it is of great significance. The AIT in this case was rightly alive to the danger of falling into the trap of dismissing the case merely because the appellant has told lies. As recognised by the “Lucas direction” in the criminal context, people lie for many reasons.In MA’s case, the central issue was whether MA had connections with powerful actors in Mogadishu. The AIT found that he had not told the truth about his links in Mogadishu. Accordingly, in MA’s case, the AIT correctly concluded that his lie was of great significance. The AIT directed itself on the basis of GM (Eritrea) as to the significance of MA’s lies, and this direction was accepted by the Court of Appeal to be “impeccable”.  The AIT’s conclusion that MA did not satisfy them that he did not have the necessary protective links in Mogadishu was one which was open to them to make:  the appellate court should not characterise as an error of law what is, in reality, no more than a disagreement with the AIT’s assessment of the facts. Furthermore, where a relevant point is not expressly mentioned in the judgment of the AIT, the court should be slow to infer that it has not been considered and taken into account.

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

Related posts:

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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.

%d bloggers like this: