![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> AG (Persecution, Discrimination, Risk, Family member) Israel [2004] UKIAT 00215 (27 July 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00215.html Cite as: [2004] UKIAT 215, [2004] UKIAT 00215 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
AG (Persecution - Discrimination - Risk - Family member) Israel
UKIAT 00215
Date of hearing: 8July 2004
Date Determination notified: 27 July 2004
AG | APPELLANT |
and | |
Secretary of State for the Home Department | RESPONDENT |
"My brother Mohammed was arrested by the Israelis on many occasions because they suspected he was working for the Palestinians. He would be in and out of detention. The fact that he had an Israeli passport did not help him. He was arrested in about 1998 and detained for about 6 months and the second time was in 2000. He was detained for 6 months again. He was never charged with anything. We went to visit him a few times. The coaches were arranged by the Red Cross. He was not badly treated when he was in prison but he was held for no reason. I do not want to make difficulties for him now."
"17. The US Department Report shows considerable distinction between the treatment of Jewish and non-Jewish citizens by the Israeli state so that, for example, we read at page 20 of the appellant's bundle that "there continue to be problems with respect to its treatment of Arab citizens" and "some security prisoners were sentenced on the basis of coerced confessions by both themselves and others according to the Human Rights Organisations. The legal system often imposed more severe punishment on Arab citizens than Jewish citizens…" and reference is made to the effect that "the government did little to reduce institutional legal and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens who constituted approximately 20% of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to and obligations imposed on the country's Jewish citizens".
"Almost inevitably this man would be identified as the brother of an administrative detainee on his return to Israel
and he would be treated with even greater suspicion than he would ordinarily."
We considered whether there is any evidence in support of that submission.
"If his brother has indeed been linked to and arrested for Palestinian militant activity then not only is he likely to receive inadequate protection from Israel
law enforcement and legal systems he may indeed be vulnerable to the type of human rights abuses (including arbitrary arrest, beatings etc) attested by the reports quoted earlier."
"Before us it was accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State that the Tribunal should act even-handedly and should only set aside a decision of an Adjudicator who has heard the evidence if it is plainly wrong or unsustainable. I do not regard the Adjudicator's conclusion as perverse or plainly wrong nor do I think that the Tribunal was entitled, at any event by the process of reasoning that it employed, to come to that conclusion."
The threshold is a high one: plainly wrong, unsustainable, perverse, so inherently illogical as to render the decision flawed. In our judgment this determination is plainly wrong and unsustainable because the Adjudicator identified no evidence in his determination to support the three bases upon which he found that the appellant was liable to persecution or a violation of his human rights on return. Mr Stanage was unable to refer us to material capable of making good the Adjudicator's failure.
Decision: The appeal of the Secretary of State is allowed.
Andrew Jordan
Vice President
Approved for electronic distribution