Respect for social norms

Cameroonian society has recently been subject to some judicial consideration. Handing down its judgment today in the case of HT (Cameroon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 172 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has reaffirmed a fundamental principle which applies to asylum and immigration decisions where an applicant claims that they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their home country. An asylum applicant, HT, appealed against the dismissal of his claim at first instance against the UK Home Secretary's decision on his asylum application. That court had determined that if the appellant were "discreet" on his return to Cameroon (although admittedly it is not clear what counts as "discreet") there was not a real risk of persecution.

His appeal was heard alongside that of an Iranian national. In this instance, both appellants were practising homosexuals and their cases called into question the degree of respect to be given by UK courts to the social norms and religious beliefs in an asylum applicant's home state.

The Court of Appeal upheld the principle that sexual discretion is something which an applicant can be expected to tolerate and that this is an appropriate and workable test. The Court was clear that the need to respect human rights transcends national boundaries but, in the judgment of Lord Justice Pill, the Court held that in assessing whether there had been a breach of human rights a degree of respect for social norms and religious practices in other states was appropriate.

Underlying the Court's decision was the acceptance that in largely Roman Catholic Cameroon (and Muslim Iran) strong views were genuinely held about homosexuality. When it considered what was reasonably tolerable in a particular society, a tribunal of fact was entitled to have regard to beliefs held there. It is of note that in both cases the evidence suggested that the appellants could reasonably be expected to tolerate conditions in their countries of origin. It stressed that a degree of discretion can be required in all sexual relationships.

It is worth noting that this judgment was based on clear evidence about what treatment HT would expect on his return to Cameroon. This was a question of evidence and clearly conditions and treatment can vary from place to place within a nation. This judgment should, however, provide clear guidance to UK courts in future. Whether it does remains to be seen.

Thanks for your interest in our work.

Best wishes,

Paul Stevenson

Chair