UK - KB & AH v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 22 November 2017

Facts:

The appellants were Ahmadis; the first appellant was the second appellant’s son. They left Pakistan after members of Khatme Nubuwaht damaged the first appellant’s shop.

Decision & reasoning:

1. The ‘Credibility Indicators’ identified in the Home Office Asylum Policy Instruction, Assessing credibility and refugee status Version 3.0, 6 January 2015 (which can be summarised as comprising sufficiency of detail; internal consistency; external consistency; and plausibility), provide a helpful framework within which to conduct a credibility assessment. They facilitate a more structured approach apt to help judges avoid the temptation to look at the evidence in a one-dimensional way or to focus in an ad hoc way solely on whichever indicator or factor appears foremost or opportune.

2. However, any reference to a structured approach in relation to the subject matter of credibility assessment must carry a number of important (interrelated) caveats, among which are the following:

·         the aforementioned indicators are merely indicators, not necessary conditions;

·         they are not an exhaustive list; assessment of credibility being a highly fact-sensitive affair, their main role is to help make sure, where relevant, that the evidence is considered in a number of well-recognised respects;

·         making use of these indicators is not a substitute for the requirement to consider the evidence as a whole or ‘in the round’;

·         it remains that credibility assessment is only part of evidence assessment and, as Lord Dyson reminded decision-makers in MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 49 at [33], ‘the significance of lies will vary from case to case’;

·         in the UK context, use of such a structured approach must take place within the framework of EU law governing credibility assessment, Article 4 of the Qualification Directive in particular; and,

·         also in the context of UK law, decision-makers (including judges) by s. 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 are statutorily obliged to consider certain types of behaviour as damaging to credibility.

3. Consideration of credibility in light of such indicators, if approached subject to the aforementioned caveats, is a valid and useful exercise, based squarely on existing learning.

Outcome:

Appeals allowed.

Observations/comments:

This case summary was written by Alice Winstanley, LLM graduate, Queen Mary University. 

Other sources:

James C Hathaway, The Law on Law of Refugee Status (Butterworths 1991), page 81

James C Hathaway and Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status (2nd edition, Cambridge University Press 2014), page 139

International Association of Refugee Law Judges, Assessment of Credibility in Refugee and Subsidiary Protection Claims under the EU Qualification Directive, Judicial Criteria and Standards (IARLJ, Credo Project 2013)

UNHCR, Beyond Proof, Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems: Full Report, May 2013

UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the Protection Needs of Members of religious Minorities from Pakistan, January 2017.

UK Home Office, Asylum Policy Instruction, Assessing credibility and refugee status, Version 3.0, 6 January 2015

UK Home Office, Home Office Country Information and Guidance: Pakistan: Ahmadis, Version 2.0, May 2016