“2. … the respondent is a Tamil from Colombo. He joined the rebel LTTE in November 2006. He was involved in arranging accommodation in Colombo for the members of the LTTE visiting Colombo in pairs for purposes which were not disclosed to him. He did so on about four occasions. In addition, he was asked to visit a place called Homagama in order to collect information about the Army barracks which were situated there. The information which he was asked to collect was the type of fencing surrounding the barracks, the number of buildings there, and so on in order to enable an estimate to be formed as to the number of soldiers there. That information was needed for the purposes of an intended attack on the barracks by the LTTE but in the event the attack did not take place. Apart from that, the respondent does not claim to have carried out any other activities for the LTTE. He was arrested in October 2009 by the Sri Lankan Army after his activities came to their attention. He was beaten and interrogated and signed a confession admitting the activities in which he had been involved. Nevertheless, he was released from the Army camp, albeit unofficially, in January 2010 after a bribe had been paid on his behalf. 3. Some three weeks later on3 February 2010 , the respondent applied for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a Tier 4 (general) Student. His application was granted on11 March 2010 . He then left Sri Lanka using his own passport on20 May 2010 and arrived in the United Kingdom on the same day. Some seven months later, on23 December 2010 , he applied for asylum. The grounds on which he did so were that he would be at risk of being detained and subjected to further ill-treatment on return to Sri Lanka because of his known involvement with the LTTE.”
“19. In summary I accept the core features of the appellant’s claim. In particular I find that the appellant has been recently ill-treated and tortured by the Sri Lankan authorities because of his actual involvement with the LTTE. This was not an insignificant detention in a round-up. The appellant was detained and ill-treated over a period of nearly two months in Colombo because of his activities on behalf of the intelligence wing of the LTTE and during this detention he signed a confession confirming his activities on behalf of the LTTE. 20. I find that the appellant does fall into the risk categories identified in the latest country guidance. I find that the risk to the appellant, what caused him to be persecuted in the past, arise from the fact that he was a known LTTE member of the intelligence wing of the LTTE operating in Colombo. The greater accuracy of records does not assist this appellant because he has been of real interest to the authorities because of his actual involvement and there is a real risk that if returned … he would be detained and thoroughly investigated. The fact that the appellant has been detained recently and has signed a confession exacerbates the risks that he will face. I find a real risk that the records will cause questions to be asked about the circumstances of his release. The fact that false documents were provided to enable him to leave the camp does not in my judgment indicate that he was released because he was of no interest. If he had been of no interest there would have been no need to provide him with this false documentation. Even if the appellant is eventually released I find that there is a real risk that the past ill-treatment suffered by the appellant would be repeated during his detention.”
“15. … I am satisfied that the Immigration Judge did indeed make a material error of law in reaching his decision. The evidence which was before him included a copy of the appellant’s detailed reasons for refusal letter dated21 January 2011 . In that letter, the appellant had set out at length the reasons why she had considered that the respondent would not be at real risk of persecution and/or ill-treatment on return to Sri Lanka despite her acceptance that he had been detained and ill-treated previously … 16. In particular, it was the appellant’s case that the fact that the respondent had been released from detention showed that he was of no further interest to the Sri Lankan authorities and would therefore not be at risk of detention on return. In addition, the respondent’s own reply during his asylum interview … was a further indication that he was of no continuing interest to the Sri Lankan Army. By his own account, he had only ever been a low level member of the LTTE. Following his release from detention, he had waited for some three weeks before making an entry clearance application to travel to the United Kingdom, and had then delayed his departure for a further four months before leaving through normal channels using his own Sri Lankan passport. He did not have any difficulties whilst leaving the country through the airport using his own passport. That was, in the appellant’s view, strongly indicative that he was not of any interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. 17. The Immigration Judge was not of course obliged to accept the points made by the appellant in those paragraphs of her reasons for refusal letter. Nevertheless, it was necessary for him to give proper consideration to them when reaching his decision. He did not do so. In his determination, he made a relatively brief reference to the reasons for refusal letter … but did not mention, let alone engage with, the various points raised by the appellant at paragraphs 29 to 40 … of that letter. It was a material error of law on his part not to do so. It therefore now falls to me to substitute my own decision.”
“By his own admission, he left through normal channels at the airport using his own Sri Lankan passport. Once again, that is strongly indicative that he was of no further interest to the Sri Lankan authorities.”