He stated that he had been forced to undergo part of an initiation ceremony into a group called the Wunde, in preparation for being killed as a sacrifice, but managed to escape. He claimed that his life would be in danger if he returned due to his identifying scarification. Expert evidence was given regarding secret societies in the region, and medical evidence which supported the Appellant's account of how his scarring was sustained. The Appellant applied for asylum in May 2000 on the basis of a fear of persecution by members of the Wunde society, and the right to remain in the UK on the basis that his removal to Sierra Leone would breach his rights under Article 3 and/or 8 ECHR. The Appellant's appeal against the rejection of his claim was twice heard by adjudicators and rejected, only to be remitted by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The Tribunal which heard the appeal which was the subject of the appeal before the Court of Appeal rejected the calim on the basis that they did not believe the Appellant's evidence ("the first issue") and found that, even if it was correct, there would be no risk to the Appellant in returning to Sierra Leone ("the second issue"). The Appellant appealed both findings. Held,

• Inherent probability can be a dangerous and inappropriate factor to rely on in asylum cases.
• The Tribunal's reasons for rejecting HK's evidence were weak and/or misconceived; the Tribunal's reasons for rejecting the expert evidence were, likewise, unsatisfactory.
• There were too many gaps in the analysis and reasoning of the Tribunal to support it conclusion on the risk the Appellant faced in Sierra Leone.
• (Neuberger and Jacob LLJ) The Appellant's claim under Article 3, being substantially the same as the second issue, was allowed.
• (Chadwick LJ) The test to be satisfied as to the likely risk to the Appellant under Article 3 is not necessarily the same as that under the Refugee Convention.
  

HK v SSHD