U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19 (12 May 2025)

A Ugandan asylum seeker's claim, based on her sexuality, was refused due to credibility issues. The Supreme Court reviewed the correct legal test for assessing credibility in such cases, clarifying the application of existing guidance where an applicant's account has changed.

Facts

The appellant, U3, a national of Uganda, claimed asylum in the UK in 2019. Her initial claim was based on her political opinion. She later varied her application to include a claim based on her sexual orientation as a lesbian, stating that she had not disclosed this earlier due to fear, shame, and a lack of trust. In Uganda, homosexual acts are illegal and there is societal persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals. The Secretary of State for the Home Department refused her application, finding her account not credible. This finding was based on the delayed disclosure of her sexuality and the fact she had a child with a man in the UK. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed her appeal, upholding the negative credibility finding. The Upper Tribunal (UT) subsequently refused her permission to appeal, agreeing with the FTT’s assessment.

Issues

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was to determine whether the FTT had erred in law in its assessment of the appellant’s credibility, specifically regarding her claimed sexual orientation. The Court had to review the correct application of the legal guidance set out in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 and RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 for assessing asylum claims based on sexual orientation. The question was whether the FTT had adopted a flawed approach by placing disproportionate weight on certain factors, such as the delayed disclosure, while failing to undertake a necessary holistic and sensitive assessment of all the evidence.

Judgment

Lord Stephens delivered the unanimous judgment of the Court, allowing the appeal. The Court held that the FTT had made a significant error of law in its approach to assessing the appellant’s credibility.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court reiterated that the correct legal test for such claims, as established in HJ (Iran), involves asking whether the claimant is gay and, if so, whether they would face a real risk of persecution upon return to their country of origin if they were to live openly. Lord Stephens found the FTT’s reasoning on the credibility question to be flawed, speculative, and failing to engage properly with the evidence. He criticised the FTT’s reliance on the appellant’s delay in raising her sexuality claim, stating:

A decision-maker must approach the issue of late disclosure with considerable caution and sensitivity. There are numerous well-documented reasons why an individual may not immediately disclose their sexual orientation, including fear, shame, a lack of understanding of the asylum process, or trauma. To treat late disclosure, without more, as a significant negative credibility factor is to risk falling into error.

The judgment also found that the FTT had placed undue weight on the fact that the appellant had a child with a man, without properly considering that sexual identity and sexual activity are not synonymous and that individuals may engage in conduct to conform or conceal their true identity. Lord Stephens emphasised the requirement for a holistic assessment of the evidence:

The task of the tribunal is to look at the evidence in the round… It is not a box-ticking exercise where factors are simply added or subtracted from a credibility balance sheet. A single, compelling piece of evidence may be sufficient to establish a claim, even in the face of multiple perceived inconsistencies.

The FTT was also found to have erred by failing to provide cogent reasons for rejecting the evidence of an expert psychologist, whose report was supportive of the appellant’s account. This failure to properly engage with key evidence further undermined the safety of the FTT’s credibility finding.

Implications

This decision strongly reinforces the need for a sensitive, individualised, and evidence-based approach to assessing asylum claims based on sexual orientation. It cautions tribunals against making stereotypical assumptions or placing excessive weight on factors like delayed disclosure or past heterosexual relationships without a thorough consideration of plausible explanations. The judgment solidifies the authority of the HJ (Iran) and RT (Zimbabwe) framework, demanding a deep and contextualised evaluation of a claimant’s narrative rather than a superficial credibility exercise. It serves as an important reminder of the tribunal’s duty to engage with all evidence, including expert reports, and to provide clear reasons for its findings. The ruling is expected to heighten scrutiny of negative credibility findings in similar asylum cases.

Verdict: The appeal is allowed. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be decided afresh by a differently constituted panel.

Source: U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 19 (12 May 2025)