TN (Vietnam), R. (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department& Anor (Rev1) [2021] UKSC 41 (22 September 2021)
Citation:TN (Vietnam), R. (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department& Anor (Rev1) [2021] UKSC 41 (22 September 2021).
Subjects invoked: 76. 'Immigration'.
Rule of thumb:What happens if a person has significant inconsistencies in their factual account in a legal matter? Their factual account must be held to have no credibility or reliability.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subjects of evidence law and immigration.
The facts of this case were that TN was from Vietnam and she had applied for asylum in the UK in 2003. This asylum was based on her being a Roman Catholic, and supposedly facing persecution for being a Roman Catholic in Vietnam. This application was refused after long and careful consideration. In 2011 TN returned to the UK again. This time she put in another asylum claim, again claiming religious persecution in Vietnam. However, this asylum application fundamentally contradicted the application she had put in 2003. In 2012, the immigration authorities rejected this application very quickly because of the blatant contradictions in her application from 2003. TN sought to appeal against her applications being considered in such a fast-track manner like this, rather than being given full time to prepare, claiming that she was not given a fair and proper opportunity to put her case across with her 2011 application. After making these asylum application, in 2015, TN put in a third asylum claim. In this application she claimed that she was trafficked to the UK, during which time she was repeatedly raped, and that she could not return to Vietnam because her life was in danger from the traffickers – they are worried TN may go to the police on them in Vietnam and they may kill her to stop her doing this. This asylum claim has still to be heard, and the Court in this case was only considering the claims about religious persecution in Vietnam.
TN argued that her religious persecution asylum claims deserved a full and detailed assessment after being given a proper chance to prepare her case. She argued that the fast-track process her application was given breached her right to a fair and proper hearing. The Home Office argued that the evidential principle of credible and reliable witnesses applied in this matter. This principle means that a person must be at least trying to tell the truth without blatant contradictions in what they are saying or else nothing they say can have any credibility or reliability, and their case cannot be upheld. The Home Office argued that when such blatant inconsistencies were found, it was completely correct for TN’s application to be given short shrift in the manner it was because it did not have credibility.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the arguments of the Home Office. The Court affirmed that where someone tells blatant mistruths in the immigration process, then their application is not deemed credible and reliable from that point on, and it is extremely unlikely that facts can be inferred for them to build a successful asylum application. The Court affirmed that the short consideration TN’s application was given was the appropriate treatment of the application in the matter. TN’s asylum application on the grounds of religious persecution was refused. In short, if someone is found to be telling blatant mistruths in Court or in asylum applications about serious matters, then it is extremely unlikely that their case or asylum application will be accepted. This can also apply more widely in all legal procedures, and not just immigration applications. It should be noted of course that TN still does have another asylum application regarding her trafficking argument to be heard – it should also be noted that TN’s argument in this trafficking matter was supported by an expert witness to give it some degree of credibility, so it does have a chance of success.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘there were many inconsistencies in her evidence … that being so, the determination … should stand’, Lady Arden 70-72
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.