R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Matthew Agbonmenio

R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
ex parte MATTHEW AGBONMENIO

16 August 1995

O/2550/95

Queen's Bench Division: Popplewell J

Political asylum-citizen of Nigeria-dismissal of appeal by special adjudicator-applicant had failed to mention significant events in asylum interview-notes of interview not read back to him-record not signed by him whether adjudicator entitled to rely on record of the interview and to base adverse findings of credibility on it.

The applicant was a citizen of Nigeria, an overstayer against whom the Secretary of State had decided to initiate deportation proceedings. He then claimed political asylum. He was interviewed. The interview took place before the procedures were revised: the notes of the interview were not read over to him and he did not sign the record.

On appeal the applicant narrated events material to the basis of his claim which he had not mentioned in his asylum interview. The adjudicator did not accept his explanation as to why there had been no earlier mention of those events and drew adverse inferences as to the applicant's credibility.

Before the court it was argued, relying on Akdogan, that there had been procedural impropriety in the conduct of the interview and the adjudicator had erred in relying on it and drawing adverse inferences from discrepancies between what was said in that interview and subsequently.

Held

1. There was nothing improper in an adjudicator taking into account a question of the failure of somebody to mention in the initial asylum interview, something of great importance.

2.It was a matter of fact for the adjudicator as to whether or not he accepted the applicant's explanation for that omission.

L Daniel for the applicant

S Kovats for the respondent

Case referred to in the judgment:

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Murat Akdogan [1995] Imm AR 176.

POPPLEWELL J: This applicant is a Nigerian who entered the United Kingdom in 1987 and was given leave to enter for six months as a visitor. He was allowed to remain as a student. In 1988 he applied out of time for leave to remain as a student. The Secretary of State served notice of intention to deport in 1988. In 1989 his appeal against that decision was dismissed, and in 1991 he claimed political asylum.

The point that is raised relates to his failure to mention what is described as "a trip" in 1986 which it is accepted was a very important matter. The adjudicator said this:

"The appellant's explanation for not having made any mention at all of this trip at his asylum interview was that he was not asked about it and he had never been to such an interview before. Cross-examined as to why he should not have told the interviewer about his 1986 trip unasked, he replied, ‘She was a young lady.' I think he meant to suggest she was too inexperienced to elicit the information rather than too shocked to be told. When it was pointed out to him that there was plenty of detail about other things in his interview the appellant complained it had not been read over to him. This complaint appears to be justified so far as it may go. The interview was taken down in the old form, recorded and in the third person, and not signed. There is no indication it was read over to him. Asked why he should have had problems in Nigeria in 1994 after being allowed to leave in 1986 the appellant pointed to the bribe he had to pay them."

Thus it was for the adjudicator to decide whether the failure to mention something of vital importance at the first interview casts some doubt or doubt on the story that he was now telling. That was entirely a matter of fact for the adjudicator, and the adjudicator said this:

"The crucial question on which the appellant's credibility is challenged is why if it is apparent that his 1986 trip were true he did not mention it at his asylum interview. His first explanation was he was not asked about it. He is a man of some intelligence and I simply do not believe he would have failed to volunteer at least something about this obviously crucial part of his case as he did on other points if there was any truth in it at all. I was not in the least impressed with the appellant's attempts to shift the blame for its not being mentioned to the youth and inexperience of the interviewer. It would have been perfectly obvious to any asylum seeker without need for any expert knowledge that he needed to mention anything bad that had happened to him on his last visit to his country of origin. Even though the record was not read over to him or signed, it ends: "Mr. Agbonmenio stated he thought he had covered everything fully and he had nothing further to add."

There has been no challenge on that point and I accept it as an accurate record of what happened.

It is submitted it was unfair for the adjudicator to rely on the interview in the light of the fact that the interview was not read over to him and was not signed. My attention was drawn to a decision of Brooke J in Akdogan in which he held there was some procedural impropriety. I find nothing procedurally improper in an adjudicator taking into account a question of the failure of somebody at the first interview to mention something of great importance. There may be an explanation for it which the adjudicator accepts which therefore does not cast doubt on his credibility. In the instant case, the adjudicator took the view that he would have volunteered this at the very beginning if it had been true. I do not find anything in this case which could possibly give rise as a matter of law to a ground of law to a ground of appeal. If leave were to be granted, it would be doomed to failure. Accordingly I shall dismiss this application.

Application dismissed

Solicitors: Sri Kanth & Co, Wembley; Treasury Solicitor