HM (Mental Health) Sierra Leone CG

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a citizen of Sierra Leone, was refused asylum by the respondent. The appellant appealed this refusal to an Adjudicator, who dismissed the appeal. The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Tribunal against the Adjudicator's determination. The hearing before the Tribunal took place on 29 August 2002. It was agreed that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appellant had previously been given leave to enter on her own passport, which she had subsequently given to another person, leading to the refusal under section 69(3) of the 1999 Act.

The appeal centered on whether the appellant faced a real risk of breach of her Article 3 rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) upon return to Sierra Leone. The appellant claimed to have been raped during an attack in Freetown and suffered depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, requiring psychiatric treatment. The Adjudicator found against the appellant’s claims on credibility grounds but accepted some medical evidence. The appellant sought to challenge these findings before the Tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant has demonstrated a real risk of a breach of her Article 3 rights upon return to Sierra Leone.
2. The proper interpretation and application of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention in the context of the appellant’s asylum claim.
3. The significance of the Adjudicator’s credibility findings and whether they were flawed.
4. The weight to be given to medical evidence and reports concerning mental health treatment availability in Sierra Leone.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Adjudicator's findings, particularly at paragraph 8, were incorrect and inconsistent with objective evidence of events in Freetown in 1999.
• The appellant left Sierra Leone when given the opportunity and was not seeking to develop the Refugee Convention argument but focused on Article 3 of the Human Rights Convention.
• The finding at paragraph 8(v) was not appropriate in the context of Article 3, and the gradual disclosure of the rape claim was consistent with the behavior of a genuine victim.
• The Adjudicator wrongly rejected the appellant’s explanation for delayed disclosure based on credibility findings.
• The finding at paragraph 13 that it would "arguably" be degrading to return the appellant meant there was a reasonable likelihood of breach of Article 3 rights, warranting allowance of the appeal.
• UNHCR papers supported the position that returns to Sierra Leone were not appropriate, emphasizing ongoing uncertainty despite peace holding.
• The appellant required psychiatric treatment unavailable in Sierra Leone, unlike the outpatient counselling she was receiving at the Maudsley Hospital.
• The appellant’s family home had been burned down, contradicting claims that she was well off and had a home to return to.

Respondent's Arguments

• The UNHCR documentation did not demonstrate a real risk to the appellant on return; police and UN presence in Freetown mitigated risk.
• The appellant was relatively well off, from the capital, and had a home to return to.
• The Adjudicator’s credibility findings should be upheld, including the appellant’s ability to remain in Freetown for two years without harm.
• There was no evidence that anti-depressants or counselling were unavailable in Sierra Leone.
• The Adjudicator’s comments at paragraph 13 were not findings of fact but observations based on the evidence.
• The use of the word "arguably" did not meet the high threshold required under Article 3 for establishing a breach of human rights.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant’s evidence was largely consistent with the objective background of events in Freetown in 1999. However, it noted a lack of a clear finding from the Adjudicator on whether the appellant had been raped, with the Adjudicator’s credibility findings generally disbelieving the appellant’s account of the attack on her home and the murder of family members. Paradoxically, the Adjudicator accepted medical evidence supporting the appellant’s claims of rape and resulting mental health issues.

The Tribunal considered the availability of mental health care in Sierra Leone, noting the existence of a psychiatrist and some services, including NGO psychosocial support and World Health Organisation involvement. It found no evidence that anti-depressants or counselling were unavailable.

Even assuming the Adjudicator’s credibility findings were flawed, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not demonstrate a real risk of breach of Article 3 rights on return. The Adjudicator’s comment that it would "arguably" be degrading to return the appellant was deemed a non-binding observation rather than a factual finding. The Tribunal emphasized the high threshold for Article 3 claims and found that it had not been met.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent that the UNHCR’s position suggested caution but did not establish a genuine risk of persecution or breach of Article 3 on return.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s asylum claim is refused and the refusal to grant asylum is upheld. There is no finding that the appellant faces a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 upon return to Sierra Leone. The decision does not establish new precedent but applies existing legal standards concerning credibility, the threshold for Article 3 claims, and the assessment of risk on return.