UK - Court of Appeal, 18 November 2010, RT (Zimbabwe) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1285

 

The Upper Tribunal, hearing the cases separately, had dismissed their appeals. The four applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which heard the appeals together.

The Secretary of State submitted that the Tribunal should consider whether the applicant’s response to avoid a threat of persecution went to the core of the applicant’s identity or not.

 

The Court rejected the submission holding that:

 

“It may be said that there is marked difference in seriousness between the impact of having to lie on isolated occasions about political opinions which one does not have, and the “long-term deliberate concealment” of an “immutable characteristic”, involving denial to the members of the group their “fundamental right to be what they are” [See Lord Hope’s speech in HJ Iran paragraphs 11 and 21]. We are not persuaded, however, that this is a material distinction in this context. The question is not the seriousness of the prospective maltreatment (which is not in issue) but the reason for it. If the reason is political opinion, or imputed political opinion, that is enough to bring it within the Convention.   In this case, we are concerned with the “imputed” political opinions of those concerned, not their actual opinions ... Accordingly, the degree of their political commitment in fact, and whether political activity is of central or marginal importance to their lives, are beside the point. The “core” of the protected right is the right not to be persecuted for holding political views which they do not have. There is nothing “marginal” about the risk of being stopped by militia and persecuted because of that. If they are forced to lie about their absence of political beliefs, solely in order to avoid persecution, that seems to us to be covered by the HJ(Iran) principle, and does not defeat their claims to asylum.”

The Court then applied these findings to the facts of the appeals.