The UK Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment that could make it easier for torture survivors to secure sanctuary in the country. The ruling overturns a previous finding that a Sri Lankan asylum seeker had organised his own torture to strengthen his claim, and instructs the Home Office and immigration tribunals to give greater weight to expert medical evidence when assessing torture claims.
The case centred on a 36-year-old Tamil man, referred to as KV, whose scars from being branded with a hot metal rod were accepted as consistent with his account of torture by Sri Lankan authorities. Despite this, lower courts had rejected his claim, suggesting the injuries might have been self-inflicted. The Supreme Court endorsed a dissenting view that it is highly unlikely an individual would want to suffer the continuing pain from self-harm.
The judgment is seen as a blow to the Home Office's 'compliant environment' policy and is expected to make it harder to dismiss torture accounts where strong medical evidence supports them. It effectively requires adherence to the Istanbul Protocol, an international standard on documenting torture.
KV, who has been awaiting a decision on his asylum claim for eight years, welcomed the ruling but said the process had taken a toll on his mental health. 'When the Home Office and courts didn't believe my account of torture it made my trauma worse,' he said.
His solicitor, Arun Gananathan, noted the difficulty his client faced after fleeing persecution only to be met with disbelief. A Home Office spokesperson declined to comment while legal proceedings continue.
