The Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 49 on 24th November 2010. The case concerned an asylum claim, specifically the relevance of lies told, and the permissibility of the Court of Appeal interfering with an assessment of facts made by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

The respondent, a citizen of Somalia, and a member of the Isaaq clan sub-clan Habr Yunis, had been granted exceptional leave to remain until February 1997, having applied for asylum in May 1995. Convicted of rape and indecency with a child in 1998 and sentenced to imprisonment, the appellant served a deportation order. However further submissions were held to amount to a “fresh claim” for asylum.

Upon reconsideration the evidence of the respondent was heard. the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) held the burden of proof was on the respondent, and he had not discharged demonstrated a real risk contrary to Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the respondent had not told the truth in relation to issues of his circumstances in Mogadishu. Allowing the respondent’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the AIT had not directed itself properly and had it considered the evidence it would have concluded that there was a real risk that protection would not be obtained, and action contrary to Art. 3 would occur, thus rendering a deportation unlawful.

On appeal, the Supreme Court was concerned to determine whether the AIT had erred in their assessment of the evidence given by the respondent, and secondly whether any error of law had arise so as to warrant interference by the Court of Appeal.

Outlining the relevant country guidance set out in AM and AM (armed conflict: risk categories) (Somalia) [2008] UKAIT 00091, the court acknowledged that Mogadishu was not a safe place for the majority of its citizens. Considering the relationship between credibility and assessment of risk, the court referred to the case of GM (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 833, in which similar circumstances arose. Agreeing with the approach taken in that case, the court determined that where a claimant’s evidence is rejected as being incredible, undisputed objective evidence about the circumstances in a country will be of assistance. The weight to be given to a lie must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Considering the AIT judgment, the court held it directed itself correctly in following the approach of GM (Eritrea) and its judgment could be read consistently with that approach. Examining whether the AIT overlooked the 12 year imprisonment of the respondent, the court noted that though there is no explicit reference to this factor, the AIT were clearly aware of it and had stated their consideration of “the entirety of the evidence in the round” in reaching their conclusion. The AIT was entitled to reach the conclusion that the respondent had not satisfied them that there were not the necessary protective links in Mogadishu.

Allowing the appeal, the court held that the approach taken by the AIT had not justified interference by the Court of Appeal.