|[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 >> Polat v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1059 (15 July 2003)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1059
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MAY
LORD JUSTICE KEENE
|SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT||Respondent/Respondent|
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR M GILL QC and MR J COLLINS (instructed by Messrs Sheikh & Co, London N4 3NX) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MR P SAINI (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"... we are satisfied that a Turkish appellant of Kurdish origin cannot succeed unless he can show, by reference to factors of this kind, something more than that the authorities will have a record of his involvement in or sympathy for a separatist organisation."
"There is no evidence I am aware of to indicate either that the level of institutionalised torture has diminished or that the security forces have largely lost interest in pursuing those suspected of assisting the PKK, regardless of whether they operated at a high or low level."
"If as a result of the information discovered during the initial computer check, subsequent interrogation at the point of entry, or received as a result of the inquiries referred to in the last paragraph, an individual suspected of membership of the PKK (now KADEK), HADEP, left wing radical organisations ... militant Islamic groups, or of giving support to one of these organisations he or she is likely to be regarded as an actual potential separatist and is likely to be handed over to the anti-terror branch."
"... we accept that before any decision to remove your client to Turkey could be taken, the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied on the basis of the current evidence you have referred to, that there would not be a breach of the Refugee Convention or European Convention on Human Rights. In that regard, the Secretary of State will consider your client's claim in light of the November 2002 and April 2003 CIPU Reports. In addition, you will be aware that since the decision in your client's case the Tribunal in Hayser  UKIAT 07083 has modified the POLAT guidelines. It follows that even if your client's appeal was dismissed, the Secretary of State would have to undertake this exercise of considering the most recent evidence and Tribunal decisions.
In the particular circumstances of your case, it is open to you to make a fresh claim on asylum and/or human rights grounds based on the above-mentioned evidence and decisions. Further, if your client is unsuccessful following consideration of his fresh claim based on this evidence, on the particular circumstances of your case, a further immigration decision will be made and your client will enjoy full appeal rights before the Adjudicator. It is of course in your client's interest to make any such claim as soon as possible. If you agree to withdraw the present appeal the Secretary of State is willing to allow two weeks from the date of this letter during which a fresh claim can be submitted without takings steps to remove your client from the United Kingdom."
ORDER: Appeal allowed; order of the IAT quashed and the matter remitted back to the IAT; no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of the claimant's Community Legal Services Funding certificate.