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.