Obasi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a national of a foreign country born in 1981, arrived in the United Kingdom in 2005 claiming asylum and human rights protection. Both claims were certified as clearly unfounded by the Defendant in a decision letter dated 9th March 2005. Removal directions were issued, but two attempts to remove the Plaintiff failed, the Defendant alleging refusal to board and violent conduct, while the Plaintiff alleged assault by escorts. The Plaintiff contended that removal would breach his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as he needed to remain in the UK to pursue a civil claim for assault, which had not yet been instituted due to public funding difficulties. The Defendant rejected the Article 6 claim in a decision letter dated 12th December 2005, reasoning that the Plaintiff could seek permission to re-enter the UK for hearing stages of the civil claim if necessary.

The principal challenge before the court concerned the certification of the Plaintiff's asylum claim as clearly unfounded. The Plaintiff's claim was based on threats arising from his refusal to assume a traditional kingship role in his home village due to religious objections. The Plaintiff alleged threats of ritual harm by kinsmen and detention without food or water. The Defendant accepted the Plaintiff's account but found the claim clearly unfounded on the grounds that the Plaintiff could obtain sufficient protection from the state authorities and could internally relocate within the country. The Plaintiff had not sought protection from the authorities, asserting corruption and lack of assistance in traditional matters. Objective evidence indicated the authorities were willing and able to provide protection, including pursuing ritual cult crimes. The court found internal relocation feasible given the Plaintiff's personal circumstances and the localized nature of the threat. The Plaintiff's appeal against certification was dismissed, and permission to appeal was refused.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff's asylum claim was "bound to fail" such that certification as clearly unfounded was lawful.
2. Whether removal of the Plaintiff would breach his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights by preventing him from pursuing a civil claim for assault.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that removal would breach his Article 6 rights because he needed to remain in the UK to pursue a civil claim for assault.
• The Plaintiff contended that the asylum claim was not bound to fail, challenging the certification as clearly unfounded on an objective basis.
• The Plaintiff asserted that the police in his home country were corrupt and unable to provide effective protection, and that internal relocation was not a viable option due to threats from kinsmen.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Defendant argued that the Article 6 claim was hopeless because the Plaintiff could seek permission to re-enter the UK for hearing stages of the civil claim if necessary.
• The Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff's asylum claim was bound to fail because the state authorities would provide sufficient protection and internal relocation was a realistic alternative.
• The Defendant relied on objective evidence indicating the authorities’ willingness and ability to investigate ritual cult crimes and emphasized the Plaintiff’s failure to seek protection from the authorities.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted the Plaintiff's factual account without credibility dispute but found the asylum claim clearly unfounded for two main reasons: sufficiency of state protection and the availability of internal relocation. The court emphasized that the Plaintiff’s failure to seek protection from the authorities undermined his claim, as objective evidence showed the authorities’ willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute ritual cult crimes. The court distinguished general police corruption from the specific issue of protection related to the Plaintiff’s circumstances.

Regarding internal relocation, the court found it a complete answer to the claim, given the Plaintiff’s personal circumstances as a young, educated, single man with financial support and mobility. The court noted the localized nature of the threat and absence of evidence that kinsmen could pursue the Plaintiff effectively outside his home area. The court rejected the Plaintiff’s subjective fear as insufficient to negate the internal relocation option.

The Article 6 claim was dismissed as hopeless because the Plaintiff could pursue the civil claim from abroad and seek permission to re-enter the UK for hearing attendance if necessary. The court held that any refusal at that stage could be considered separately.

Holding and Implications

The court UPHELD the certification of the Plaintiff's asylum claim as clearly unfounded and refused permission to appeal on this point. It also rejected the Plaintiff’s Article 6 claim regarding removal. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment and leave of the court for enforcement.

The decision directly affects the parties by confirming the lawfulness of the certification and removal directions. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.