[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Hadadi v Secretary Of State For Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 201 (29 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/201.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 201

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM AN IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 29th January 2001

Monday, 29th January 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: There were originally in this appeal two bases being advanced on which it is said the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should have found that there was a real risk of persecution to the applicant. One of those related to the alleged risk of persecution by non State agents in the shape of an extremist Islamic group in Algeria. That is not now a head of appeal which is pursued by Mr Jacobs on behalf of the applicant; and so I need say no more about it.
2. The other basis upon which the applicant had put forward his allegedly well-founded risk of persecution was in respect of the risk of ill-treatment at the hands of the police on the basis that he was suspected of having given money willingly to the particular extremist group in question. The basis of the attack on this part of the tribunal's decision is that the tribunal acted irrationally by making speculative findings about how the police would act in Algeria in the situation which would arise if the applicant were to be returned there.
3. With some hesitation, I have concluded that there is an arguable point here which has some real prospect of success. I arrive at that conclusion in the light of the objective general evidence about the police treatment in Algeria of those suspected of involvement with terrorist groups. The tribunal accepted that what mattered in a situation such as this was not the fact of whether or not the applicant was a genuine supporter of such a terrorist group, but, rather, the perception of those in authority of his situation. It seems to me that it is arguable on the evidence that the police in Algeria cannot be taken to act in quite as rational a way as the tribunal appeared to be assuming and that it is properly arguable that the tribunal was wrong to assume that the applicant would be able to escape such ill-treatment as appears to be meted out to those suspected of such involvement merely because, rationally, he might be able to show that he was financially in a very difficult position because of the monies which he had paid to the terrorist group. As Mr Jacobs says, that is something which could equally well be seen by the police as showing a high degree of support and dedication on his part to the objectives of the terrorist group. The fact that there was no evidence about what had happened to the 11 other traders who had been giving money (probably involuntarily) to the terrorist group from the applicant's area does not necessarily cause one to arrive at the conclusion at which the tribunal arrived, namely, that they had not been ill-treated. It seems that they had been detained after the applicant had fled the area; and certainly there was no evidence that they had been released by the time when he left Algeria.
4. For those reasons, it seems to me that this applicant could arguably come within the category of those who would be suspected by the Algerian Police of involvement with such terrorist groups; and in those circumstances it is arguable that there is a real risk of persecution for a Convention reason were he now to be returned to Algeria. On that basis I propose to grant permission to appeal in this case.
Order:Application allowed. Legal aid assessment of applicant's costs. (ORDER DOES NOT FORM PART OF APPROVED JUDGMENT)