United Kingdom - High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division (Judicial Review), JR 184, [2021] NIQB 98, 02/11/2021

Facts:

A Somalian applicant applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. The applicant's allegation focused on the life-threatening dangers posed by the Islamist militant group Al-Shabaab who had kidnapped her. Due to a lack of credibility, her asylum application was rejected. Afterwards, the applicant made further submissions on three occasions, which included:

1)       Medical reports stating that she has suffered from mental illness;

2)       Reports concerning attacks which have occurred in Mogadishu;

3)       Medical evidence showing that she has suffered from a moderate depressive episode, along with cognitive impairment. Additionally, reports from the WHO and Human Rights Watch proved that persons suffering from mental illness are discriminated in Somalia

The Secretary of State for the Home Department rejected these submissions and the applicant decided to appeal. It was decided that the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s decision must take a new decision within three months. The Secretary of State only adopted the new decision seven months later, which was appealed by the applicant.

Decision & reasoning:

The High Court quashed the new decision of the Secretary of State for not complying with the standard of review. The High Court stated that fresh decisions have to be based on new materials. In the case at hand, the Secretary of State however relied on the same evidence which were used for the first decision and the former decision was also used as a reference in the new decision.

Secondly, the High Court criticized the fact that the Secretary of State drew an adverse inference from the failure of the applicant to supply new medical evidence. In this context, the court pointed out that, although the applicant did not provide new evidence, the Secretary of State could encourage the applicant to submit any additional materials that she considers relevant.

Thirdly, regarding the evidence on ill-treatment and discrimination of those suffering from mental illness in Somalia, the High Court found that the Secretary of State erred in finding that there would be no risk that the applicant would be ill-treated on the ground that an UN report showed that the mental health care system has improved. The Court held that the causation as to why the applicant did not risk exposure to ill-treatment as defined by Article 3 of the ECHR was not explained by the UN report referred to. Therefore, the Court found that the Secretary of State did not apply the correct standard of proof in support of its decision.

Outcome:

The Secretary of State’s decision is quashed

Observations/comments:

This summary was written by Ekin Sakin, student at the Human Rights and Migration Law Clinic at the University of Gent.

Other sources:

2010 World Health Organisation report “A Situation Analysis of Mental Health in Somalia

Human Rights Watch report “Chained Like Prisoners”: Abuses against People with Psychosocial Disabilities in Somaliland, dated 2015