- BY CJ McKinney
Immigration judge gave impression that he “considers all asylum seekers to be liars”
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
An experienced immigration judge’s ruling in an asylum case gave the impression that he “considers all asylum seekers to be liars”, the Upper Tribunal has found. The case is MR v Secretary of State for the Home Department PA/02377/2019.
Upper Tribunal Judge Martin described the First-tier Tribunal decision in the case as “couched in rather intemperate language”. It included a suggestion that MR had changed his account during the hearing by claiming to be an atheist, which supposedly he had never raised before. This, the Upper Tribunal clarified, was “not true”: MR had referred to being an atheist both at his asylum interview and in a written statement.
Judge Martin also heard evidence from MR’s counsel that Judge Geraint Jones QC was “aggressive and sarcastic”, giving “every impression of being biased against this appellant in particular and asylum seekers in general”.
On the basis of this evidence and the First-tier Tribunal judgment itself, Judge Martin concluded:
an impartial observer sitting in court at this hearing would have come to the conclusion that this appellant did not have a fair hearing. The Decision and Reasons itself gives the impression that this particular judge considers all asylum seekers to be liars. It may be that the appellant’s claim may be found to be not credible but the terms in which the adverse credibility findings are couched in this Decision and Reasons does not give the impression of an impartial assessment of the evidence.
The Home Office did not seek to defend the ruling under appeal. The case has been remitted for a full rehearing.
The First-tier Tribunal judge involved has now, reportedly, retired. Separate allegations of bias against him were raised in the reported case of Ortega (remittal; bias; parental relationship) [2018] UKUT 298 (IAC). On that occasion, the Upper Tribunal rejected the claim.
Interested in refugee law? You might like Colin's book, imaginatively called "Refugee Law" and published by Bristol University Press.
Communicating important legal concepts in an approachable way, this is an essential guide for students, lawyers and non-specialists alike.
SHARE
