Scottish Human Rights Law Group

This was a conjoined appeal by O, a Sudanese national, and M, a Ugandan national, following decisions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) dismissing their asylum appeals.   Both claimed asylum based on their homosexuality, it being an offence under national law in both their home states. 

In dismissing their appeals, the AIT held that there was very little objective evidence to prove that the national legislation was enforced by the Sudanese and Ugandan authorities, therefore, there was no real risk of persecution should they be returned.  O and M appealed, submitting that the situation had changed due to the passing of the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006, which implement EU Directive 2004/83.  In refusing the appeal the court held that these Regulations did not widen the scope of persecution further than the current definition under domestic case law. Therefore, if persecution could not be established under current UK jurisprudence, independently of the EU Directive, then no persecution could be established.  The court found the AIT conclusions on the facts justified and found that the Tribunal had not erred in law.