Lord Glennie criticises asylum judges for 'disregarding' Glasgow Tron evidence of two Iranians' Christianity conversion

New details of the case have emerged showing how Lord Glennie in his judgment felt judges in two first tier tribunals (FTT) were predisposed to reject the men's claims of asylum having "paid little attention" to other evidence, particular witnesses from the Tron Church in Glasgow, of which the men, referred to only as TF and MA are members.

READ MORE: Asylum-seeking Christian family fear death if forced to leave Glasgow after six years

He said the Tron witnesses gave "admissible opinion evidence which is entitled to respect".

Both the first tier and upper tribunals who rejected the appeals "failed properly to take account of the independent evidence relating to the genuineness of the appellants’ conversions to Christianity. And they have failed to give adequate reasons for, in effect, disregarding such evidence."

Around 130-150 Iranians both asylum seekers and those who had already been granted asylum regularly attend mid-week meetings and Sunday services at the Tron.

The unidentified FTT judge in the case of TF had decided that he was claiming to be a Christian because it would assist him in his asylum claim in the UK.

He had identified "major inconsistencies" in his account of distribution anti-regime leaflets in Iran in 2013 before he came to the UK and rejected his claim that he had been arrested and tortured.

The judge went so far as conclude that a letter from a hospital relating to the man's treatment for physical injuries and sexual harm while in an Iranian prison were fabricated to improve his chances of asylum.

The judge found that TF, who entered the UK legally six years ago on a student visa, had been on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in 2013 undermining his claim that Islam did not play a role in his life.

READ MORE: Asylum seeker Somer Umeed Bakhsh gets six As in exams despite fears of deportation from Scotland

The judge said: "There have been certain areas where the appellant has failed to provide honest information in his claim for asylum and I consider it reasonable to conclude that his failure to be truthful in these matters undermines his claimed conversion to Christianity."

Three Tron representatives wrote in support of TF, including retired solicitor and missionary John Taylor who said: "I am convinced that this active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ would place him in danger if he were to be returned to Iran, where the authorities view conversion to Christianity as blasphemy. I would therefore request that this application for permission to remain in the UK be granted so that he may continue to live a useful life in UK society.”

The other asylum seeker MA entered the UK illegally in October, 2015 and initially claimed asylum because he was perceived to be a homosexual and at risk if returned, the Court of Session heard.

When the matter came to the FTT the claim was made on the basis of a conversion to Christianity which was not raised before Theresa May, then Home Secretary.

FTT judge took the view that the claim of conversion to Christianity was being kept “in reserve” as a “Plan B”, to be deployed if the initial claim based on perceived homosexual orientation should fail.

And the FTT judge called his claim a "multi-layered contrivance" adding: "He is not a genuine asylum seeker and should be removed from the UK on that basis."

The judge felt that a fabrication of a story about an alleged homosexual encounter appeared to indicate that the appellant is "someone who is prepared to contrive an account to suit his purposes".

Four representatives from the Tron backed MA's asylum bid including Mr Taylor who again warned of persecution if returned to Iran.

But Lord Glennie said that in each case, the FTT, having formed a view on credibility adverse to the men "appears to have paid little attention to the other evidence available to it, particularly the evidence from the witnesses from the Tron Church, accepting its honesty but giving it little or no weight.

"It is wrong in principle to form a concluded view of the probable veracity of particular items of evidence and then, from that fixed point, to allow that view to govern the assessment of other evidence in the case. The proper approach is to adopt what is sometimes called an 'holistic' approach, considering all the evidence 'in the round' before arriving at any concluded view on the facts.

He added: "The judge should not jump too readily to the conclusion that because the appellant has told lies about some matters then his credibility on all matters is fatally undermined.

"Juries in a criminal trial are commonly directed that the fact that an individual may have lied about one point does not necessarily mean that he is lying about other matters, and the same words of caution should be taken to heart by tribunal judges hearing evidence in immigration and asylum appeals.

"People have different reasons for not telling the truth, or the whole truth, about particular matters.

He said in the case of TF: "[The FTT judge] says that he has 'looked at all the evidence in the round and taken into account my other findings herein before reaching my conclusions in respect of the appellant’s claimed conversion to Christianity'. But when one looks at his reasons, he does no such thing.

"What he ought to have done was to look at all the evidence in the case, including the evidence from the Tron Church witnesses, on its own merits before forming a concluded view as to the veracity of the appellant.

"We cannot say what conclusion he would have reached had he done this, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a consideration of the evidence from the church, carried out on its merits and without any a priori assumption about the appellant’s lack of credibility, might have led him to form a different view of the appellant."

Lord Glennie said over the MA decision that the judge expressed concern about "what appears to be a mean-spirited approach to some of the evidence".

The FTT judge had referred to the Tron Church as an example of organisations which “on the face of it at least are bona fide religious institutions or organisations”.

Lord Glennie said: "The use of the expression “on the face of it at least” appears to imply some doubt as to whether or not it is a bona fide religious organisation. If that is what he is saying he should say so clearly and give his reasons. If he has no good reason to doubt its bona fides then he should refrain from this insinuating reference."

The judgment said the men's appeals were heard together because they appeared to raise similar questions relating to the appropriate treatment of certain types of evidence in cases where the genuineness of conversion is challenged.

Lord Glennie said they also raised questions as to the status of evidence from church leaders or others holding positions of responsibility about the conduct of a person who has begun the process of admission into the church and as to the sincerity of his conversion to Christianity.