A Somali national convicted of rape and indecency with a child is to be deported after the Supreme Court dismissed his Art 3 claim for protection.
The case, MA (Somalia) v Home Secretary [2010] UKSC 49, hinged on whether the Court of Appeal had taken the wrong approach regarding the appellant’s lies to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT).
The AIT found that MA had lied about his circumstances in Mogadishu, and rejected his claim that he faced a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal held that, regardless of MA’s lies, the AIT should have looked for further evidence to support his case, including the impact of his 12 years in prison on his connections in Mogadishu.
However, Lord Phillips and four Supreme Court Justices held the court had been wrong to interfere with the AIT’s assessment that MA was lying. They commented on the proper role of the court in relation to appeals on grounds of errors of law.
Delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment, Sir John Dyson said “the court should not be astute to characterise as an error of law what, in truth, is no more than a disagreement with the AIT’s assessment of the facts.
“Moreover, where a relevant point is not expressly mentioned by the tribunal, the court should be slow to infer that it has not been taken into account”.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
