UK Supreme Court over-rules government on Lankan asylum seeker torture claims

A decision to deny a Sri Lankan man asylum over the belief he may have sought to have  tortured himself in order to stay in the UK has been overturned by the Supreme Court in the UK.

The man, who is referred to as KV in the case, has made repeated attempts to stay in the UK since leaving Sri Lanka. He was denied asylum by a tribunal, which was later held up by the Court of Appeal, UK news reported.

‘The allegation that KV’s torture scars were self-inflicted by proxy was always a bizarre and improbable one with no evidence to support it,’ said Colin Yeo, immigration barrister.

But on Wednesday the Supreme Court overturned the tribunal’s decision. In its judgement the UK’s highest appeal court stated that self inflicted torture by proxy (SIBP) – when an individual asks someone to carry out torture on them – is “inherently unlikely”. The judges also sought to remind the tribunal that “evidence of wounding by SIBP on the part of asylum-seekers is almost non-existent”.

But the Supreme Court has referred KV’s case back to the tribunal for a fresh determination on his future. 

The case – KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – states that KV came to the UK to claim asylum in 2011. He claimed that although he was not a member of the militant Tamil Tigers group in his home country, he used to work for them. He said was detained by the Sri Lankan government, whose officials tortured him by applying hot metal rods to his arm in an effort to extract information.

After escaping Sri Lanka, he came to Britain to seek asylum but the Home Secretary rejected his case. A Sri Lankan protester kicks the symbol of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Photo: AFP/Getty) KV is severely scarred on his arms and also has scars on his back.

The markings on his back are believed to be from the hot rods having been applied to his body when he was unconscious, as they have clearly defined edges. Those on his arms, by comparison, have blurred edges, as the rods would likely have been applied when he was conscious, causing him to convulse during the torture.

The possibility that KV’s scars were the result of SIBP was discussed at the tribunal case. Judges deemed some of his evidence unconvincing but recognised that if his scarring was due to torture, then his story could be true.

Furthermore, a medical expert said the scarring was “highly consistent” with torture and unlikely to be the result of SIBP. Tribunal dismisses case But the tribunal dismissed KV’s appeal for asylum. Later, the Court of
Appeal upheld the tribunal’s decision, adding the medical expert had acted outside of his remit in delivering his conclusions. However, the court added that the tribunal was wrong to give general guidance on how to deal with scarring and medical evidence in torture cases, as SIBP is so rare.