Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[3] In summing up her reasons for rejecting the applicant’s claim, the judge of the FTT said this at para 35:
"In coming to these conclusions I accept the appellant’s injuries to his face are not self-inflicted but make no finding as to how they were caused. I do not find the Appellant's evidence credible for the reasons set out above and I do not consider Dr Addis' view of how his scars and dental injuries were caused outweigh my findings particularly taking into account the possibility of their being caused in a traffic accident or deliberately but not because the Appellant was tortured as claimed"
[5] The UT dismissed the appeal, and in this application it is maintained that in doing so the UT erred in law, the grounds being those referred to in the previous paragraph.
[6] In support of the first ground, that the FTT had taken a compartmentalised approach to the evidence counsel cited paragraph 24 from the opinion of in Mibanga v SSHD [2005] INLR 377 that:
“What the fact-finder does at his peril is to reach a conclusion by reference only to the appellant's evidence and then, if it be negative, to ask whether the conclusion should be shifted by the expert evidence.”
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.