New judgment: MA (Somalia) v SSHD  UKSC 49
24 Wednesday Nov 2010
On appeal from:  EWCA Civ 426
Considered the correct approach to the relevance of lies told by an asylum seeker in the assessment of real risk of persecution on return to his or her country of origin; and how far it is legitimate for an appeal court to interfere with the assessment of facts made by a specialist tribunal on the grounds of error of law. The Supreme Court allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. The AIT did not err in their assessment of MA’s lies and there was no error of law which warranted interference by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court should not characterise as an error of law what is, in reality, no more than a disagreement with the AIT’s assessment of the facts. Furthermore, where a relevant point is not expressly mentioned in the judgment of the AIT, the court should be slow to infer that it has not been considered and taken into account.