IA045922012

We have taken account of the determinations referred to above. We have also taken account of the guidance in Devaseelan and other cases referred to by Mr. Mackenzie. A finding of fact was made in April 2009 that the Appellant had not been tortured in Liberia. This was mainly because he had not referred to torture in his earlier appeal and we can understand why the finding was made and why the Respondent continues to doubt credibility. That is our starting point with regard to his account of events in Liberia.

It is clear that there was very little evidence before the Adjudicator in 2003 and neither party was represented and once again, it is not surprising that a different view of credibility was taken by the Panel in 2009. The only medical evidence of PTSD was from a GP and for reasons referred to above, that was rejected and the Panel were found not to have made an error of law in rejecting that evidence with regard to scarring. We note that there was limited evidence available at the 2009 hearing despite the fact that the Appellant was then represented.

We take the view that it is highly unlikely that it would be possible for the Appellant to feign mental illness of the severity diagnosed over the period since 2009 and to fool both Professor Katona and Sally Solfe as well as the GP who initially diagnosed his problem. We find as a fact that he suffers from complex PTSD.

The cause of his illness is less straightforward. We have considered the possibility that it was the general experience of living in war-torn Liberia, being separated from his family or the death of his family, his experience of being convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence and his period of detention which caused the PTSD. However, we have no reason to doubt the expert opinion of Professor Katona that even the cumulative effect of these events would not cause the kind of PTSD suffered by the Appellant.

We believe the considerable amount of fresh evidence before us justifies departure from their findings on credibility. We also had a second report on scarring from Dr Arnold which post-dated the previous decision. At the very least, the scars were found to be consistent with the ill-treatment alleged by the Appellant. In his overall evaluation of the clinical evidence he felt it would be most unusual for a single individual to display the number, type and extent of scarring for reasons other than torture or organised violence.