[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 >> Muiruri, R (on the application of) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2002] EWCA Civ 140 (5 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/140.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 140

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(Mr Justice Cresswell)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 5th February 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of Mr Justice Cresswell given in a judgment on 8th November 2001. Mr Justice Cresswell refused permission to apply for judicial review on the application of Catherine Muiruri.
2. The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom in 1997 and claimed asylum, which was refused. She returned to the United Kingdom on 9th January 1998 and claimed asylum as an unaccompanied minor. The claim was refused by the Secretary of State on 25th April 2000. There was an appeal to a special adjudicator, whose determination was signed on 24th February 2001. The adjudicator dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was sought. That application was refused on 9th May 2001.
3. An application for judicial review was made. That was first considered on the papers by Mr Justice Jackson, who refused permission to apply for judicial review. The application was renewed orally before Mr Justice Cresswell. Mr Justice Cresswell set out considerable parts of the decision of the adjudicator as well as that of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Mr Justice Cresswell concluded:

"In all the circumstances, in my judgment there are no grounds for interfering with the decision of the IAT in this case. Permission is accordingly refused."

4. Grounds of appeal have been settled by counsel, who analyses the decision of the adjudicator. It is the decision of the adjudicator in which in substance an error of law has to be shown if the applicant is to have permission to appeal.
5. The applicant is not present today. I received a letter dated 1st February from the applicant's solicitors addressed to the Civil Appeals Office, stating that neither they nor counsel will be attending the hearing scheduled for today and asking that the hearing date be vacated "in order that the appellant may consider the possibility of representing herself at a renewed oral application". I declined to do that and the solicitors were so advised that same day, last Friday, 1st February. In a telephone conversation with a representative of the Civil Appeals Office the solicitors confirmed that they had received notification that the hearing would not be adjourned and stated that their non-attendance today was not a discourtesy. As I say, the applicant has not appeared this morning to pursue her application. I have, however, thought it right to consider the application on the merits in her absence.
6. I agree with the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Mr Justice Jackson and Mr Justice Cresswell. The adjudicator conducted an appropriate and detailed inquiry into the evidence given before him. He came to the conclusion that, for a number of reasons which are set out in the report, the evidence of the applicant was not credible. He came to the conclusion that:

"For her to say that if she was returned to Kenya as a low level activist, and still a young one, in Safina that she would be killed on return is utterly fanciful and is not borne out by the objective evidence.

I do not find that she was credible and I do not accept the evidence of her aunt either."

7. The adjudicator concluded:

"Owing to the incredible nature of her story all I can find as a fact is that this Appellant had some minor scars on her body and she has come here for reasons unconnected with the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees."

8. The adjudicator had considered the evidence of the scars. In my judgment, on that issue and on the issues as a whole in the case, he was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did.
9. No arguable point of law has been identified and the application is refused.
Order: application for permission to appeal dismissed; transcript of this judgment to be supplied to the applicant at public expense.