The court took a strict approach to the issue of admission of evidence which might demnostrate that the decision under appeal was based upon an error of fact. The appellant was a citizen of the Congo who had been refused asylum and failed in his appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal had concluded that there was a state of civil war in the Congo, a view which was challenged by the appellant by reference to a report written after the Tribunal hearing.
Held: The court rejected the appeal, but undertook a detailed review of the Tribunal’s conclusions on the material available to it. Peter Gibson LJ said the appellant had sought to rely on a report by a Dr Manley, which had not been before the Tribunal at the time of its hearing but was provided to it when permission was asked to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Peter Gibson LJ agreed with the approach that whih prevented the material being received by the Court, on the grounds that the Court could only consider ‘any question of law material to the determination’: ‘This Court . . is confined to looking to see whether the Tribunal erred in some manner in relation to the facts and material which were before the Tribunal. It is obvious that material not put to the Tribunal could not be used to identify an error of law on the part of the Tribunal.’ and ‘It is inappropriate for new material to be presented to this Court which could not in any way have affected the decision of the Tribunal below. It is of course open to an applicant to present such new material to the Secretary of State once the appellate process relating to the earlier decision has been exhausted; and I do not doubt that the Secretary of State would take into account material such as that from Dr Manley, as an expert in the relevant field.’
Judges:
Buxton LJ, Peter Gibson LJ
Citations:
[2000] Imm AR 594
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.193421
