THE full extent of the Tory Government’s discredited hostile environment for immigrants was laid bare in Scotland’s highest court last week when a judge stopped the Home Office from deporting a Malaysian Christian woman back to her homeland, where she had suffered attacks by Islamists because of her religion.
Lady Clark in the Court of Session allowed the Christian woman – who is remaining anonymous – leave to appeal against the deportation decision taken when Prime Minister Theresa May was Home Secretary.
The suffering of the woman was laid bare in Lady Clark’s written judgment.
She wrote: “The applicant has always given a history which involved a history of violent incidents. In particular, as summarised in the [Home Office] decision letter dated 10 March 2015 in paragraph 10, her account was recorded: ‘In August 11 2014, a group of men forced themselves into your home, a knife was put to your throat, and the rest of your family were threatened. You were told that what you were doing was illegal, because your father was still considered a Muslim but was practising Christianity and living with a non-Muslim family. Your father told these men that he would convert the whole family the next day.’
The woman had come to the UK to flee the Islamist persecution but in 2015 the Home Office back insisted on trying to deport her, even though its own decision letter stated: “Due to the fact that you have no outstanding credibility issues regarding the incidents themselves, your claim that your house was forced into three times has been accepted.”
In other words, the Home Office knew the Christian family had been under attack from Islamists but still wanted to send her home.
The woman, her father and her brother had named an individual called Imam Khalid as the ringleader of the gang who had attacked the family on three occasions.
The family alleged that Khalid had links to the Malaysian authorities, but a judge at an earlier tribunal had rejected such a link.
The court had been told that the day after the attack, the woman, her father and her brother had started the process of converting to Islam by signing a form in an Islamic office in Malaysia.
This was crucial as it meant that the woman and her family had to conform to Islamic law and according to an expert witness, Professor Christoph Bluth, they could be persecuted if they did not comply, with the woman continuing to practise Christianity.
Lady Clark noted: “On 22 February 2017, solicitors for the applicant made a claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules, submitted further information and asked matters to be determined as a fresh claim.
“That information included medical evidence about injuries and psychological damage to the applicant’s father, a report from an expert Professor Bluth and also information about problems for the applicant because she signed a form to start the conversion process.
“The expert report canvassed some of the problems for a person such as the applicant and concluded that there was a serious risk that the applicant (if she had signed the form to start the conversion process) would be identified as a Muslim and would be at risk of persecution and serious harm if forced to return to Malaysia.”
With the Home Office refusing to reconsider, a second judge at a First-tier Tribunal rejected the woman’s case and decided she had not signed the crucial conversion form.
Lady Clark pointed out that “the appellant is at present in the UK and not in a position to get the form herself” and that there had been no criticism of the woman’s credibility at the earlier tribunal.
Lady Clark concluded: “ My reading of the decision of the second First-tier Tribunal decision dated 1 July 2017 is that the evidence was not assessed in its full context and the reasoning given seems perverse.
“The Upper Tribunal failed to provide a remedy. In my opinion this is a case in which leave to appeal should be granted.”
The National respects the Christian woman’s request for anonymity but will take up her case with the Home Office.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel