6.  The applicant was born in 1975 in Sri Lanka. He currently lives in London. He is of Tamil ethnicity. 7.  The applicant entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 17 August 1999 and claimed asylum the next day. He stated that he feared ill-treatment in Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“the LTTE”). He explained that he had been arrested and detained by the army on six occasions between 1990 and 1997 on suspicion of involvement with the LTTE. Following his last detention he went into hiding until his family managed to fund his journey to the United Kingdom. He feared the LTTE on account of their adverse interest in his father who had done some work for the army. They had also tried to recruit the applicant on two occasions in 1997 and 1998. 8.  His claim was refused by the Secretary of State on 30 October 2002. His appeal against that decision was heard and dismissed by an Adjudicator on 27 July 2003. It was found that the applicant’s account was credible: namely, he had been arrested by the army on some six occasions between 1990 and 1997 on suspicion of his involvement with the LTTE. He was detained for less than twenty-four hours on the first occasion and for two days on the last. There was no evidence as to how long the other periods of detention had lasted. On each occasion he was released without charge. During one or possibly more of these periods of detention he was ill-treated and his legs had scars from being beaten with batons. According to the Adjudicator, it may have been that the arrests took place in the course of round-ups. During the 1997 detention the applicant was photographed and his fingerprints were taken and his father signed certain papers in order to secure his release. He went into hiding in a temple and wanted to leave Sri Lanka at that stage but it took time for his mother to obtain money from his brother to pay the agent for his departure. 9.  However, the Adjudicator found that the applicant’s fear of ill-treatment by the army upon his return was unjustified. It was noted that, since his departure from Sri Lanka, there had been a ceasefire between the army and the LTTE for a considerable time, checkpoints had been dismantled, and the LTTE had been able to open political offices and roads in the north. It was unlikely that he would attract any interest on the part of the authorities upon his return. Even if the record of his arrests was found it would be seen that he had been held for short periods and released without charge on each occasion. There was no record that he had ever been involved with the LTTE or that he had ever been wanted by the authorities. There was no reason why he should be strip-searched on return and, even if his scars were found, they would not cause the authorities to take an interest in him, certainly not to the extent of detaining and ill-treating him. 10.  As to his fear of the LTTE, the Adjudicator appeared to accept that the applicant’s brother had done non-combative work for the LTTE, though he was never a member. He, the brother, had been arrested by the army but never charged and had left Sri Lanka for Saudi Arabia in 1997. It was found unlikely that the LTTE would still have any interest in the applicant and if he was settled in Colombo it would be unlikely that they could track him down. In any event, he could apply to the authorities for protection. As to his argument that he was in need of psychiatric treatment as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, it was found that adequate treatment would be available in Sri Lanka. 11.  He was issued with removal directions for 1 April 2006 and made further representations attempting to lodge a fresh asylum application on 29 March 2006. On 3 April 2006 the Secretary of State refused to consider his further representations as amounting to a new asylum application. The general situation in Sri Lanka did not indicate any personal risk of ill-treatment and there was no evidence that he would be personally affected upon return. The fact that he had been away from Sri Lanka for the past seven and a half years suggested that he would hardly be of any interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. 12.  His application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused on 23 May 2006 on the papers by Mr Justice Collins who stated:
“There is no question but that the situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated over the past few months and to such an extent that there is a real prospect [that the full scale war between the LTTE and the authorities will recommence. However, that does not of itself mean that no-one can be returned. The adjudicator accepted the claimant’s account but noted that he had only been detained for short periods, possibly in general round ups, and had not assisted the LTTE. All this was over 7 years ago.
In the circumstances, it is not possible to say what has been happening creates a real risk of relevant ill-treatment for this claimant. Thus I do not think there is any arguable error of law in the defendant’s decision.” 13.  The applicant’s renewed application was refused by Mr Justice Burnton at an oral hearing on 18 August 2006. 14.  The applicant was then issued with removal directions for 10 January 2007. On 9 January 2007, he made further representations to the Secretary of State arguing, inter alia, that removal would be incompatible with his rights guaranteed by the Convention. When the Secretary of State did not respond, on 10 January 2007 the applicant sought to challenge this failure by judicial review. 15.  It appears that the same day, the Secretary of State did in fact reject these representations as not amounting to a fresh claim. The Secretary of State relied on the findings of the Adjudicator and the observations of Mr Justice Collins of 23 May 2006. The Secretary of State also considered a paper submitted by the applicant which had been issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on 22 December 2006, entitled “the UNHCR Position on the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Sri Lanka” (“the UNHCR Position Paper” see paragraphs 65–68 below). He found, however, that the paper was general in nature and therefore little weight could be attached to it. Consideration was given to the applicant’s claim that the political and security situation in Sri Lanka had worsened and whilst it was acknowledged that there had been some problems with the peace process, the LTTE and the Sri Lankan authorities were committed to peace and working towards an agreement. Notwithstanding two bomb attacks in Colombo, there was a “distinct geographical limitation” to recent incidents and it was open to the applicant to avoid the northern and eastern areas affected by the continuing operations of the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE. The majority of Tamils could live in Colombo and the south without harassment. Recent security operations in Colombo were also noted but it was not considered that Tamils in Colombo were at risk of persecution due to their ethnicity or political opinions. The majority of people detained had been quickly released following identity checks. In terms of internal relocation, it was not unduly harsh to return failed asylum-seekers there. While there had been increasing levels of disappearances in Sri Lanka, progress had been made by the creation of an independent body to observe government investigations. The Secretary of State concluded that the points made in the applicant’s submissions had not been previously considered, but taken with the materials considered in the original refusal of the applicant’s asylum claim and the determination of his appeal by the Adjudicator, the new materials would not have created a realistic prospect of success and the submissions did not therefore amount to a fresh asylum claim. 16.  The applicant then made an out of hours application for an injunction to the High Court. This was granted by Mr Justice Underhill and the removal directions in place for the same evening were cancelled. In his subsequent order of 15 January 2007, Mr Justice Underhill stated:
“I considered the Secretary of State’s careful letter [of 10 January 2007] and am mindful of the fact that [the applicant] has had a previous application for judicial review dismissed. But in my view it is sufficiently arguable that the recent further deterioration in the situation in Sri Lanka may justify a fresh claim to make it just for removal to be deferred until this issue can be properly considered. I note in particular para. 34 (a) of the recent UNHCR report [which contained the UNHCR’s recommendations in respect of Tamils from the north or east – see paragraphs 65 – 68 below]. I am aware that there are other pending applications for permission to apply for judicial review raising the same issue.” 17.  On 14 February 2007 Mrs Justice Black refused the applicant’s application for permission to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to consider and determine the new representations made on 9 January 2007. She stated:
“In fact [the Secretary of State] did consider the further representations and, in a letter of 10 January 2007, refused to treat them as a fresh claim. Strictly speaking that disposes of the proposed [judicial review] application.
However, it is clear that the claimant seeks in fact to advance a more fundamental challenge to the removal directions on the basis that the situation in Sri Lanka has deteriorated since the matter was last considered and has reached a point where the claimant would be at risk on return. Reliance is placed on a UNHCR document dated 22 December 2006 setting out the dangerous situation in Sri Lanka...Underhill J granted an injunction prohibiting removal on 15 January 2007, apparently referring to the deterioration in the situation in Sri Lanka and particularly para 34(a) of the UNHCR report. It is understandable why he took this view.
However, now that some detail of the claimant’s immigration history is available, it does not appear that he had advanced anything significantly different in the letter of 9 January 2007 from that which was considered when representations were made on his behalf in March 2006 and in particular during the JR proceedings that concluded with an oral permission hearing on 18 August 2006. There is material in the January 2007 letter in addition to the UNHCR report which is later but there is also material that in fact relates to the first half of 2006...Whilst I note with anxiety para 34(a) of the UNHCR report as Mr Justice Underhill did (and the contents of that report generally), in the light of the reasoning concerning this particular claimant who has been assessed by the adjudicator as not of interest to the authorities, the material does not amount to sufficient in my view to justify granted permission to commence a judicial review of the decision of 10 January 2007.
The injunction granted by Underhill J will, however, be continued until either the time for renewal orally has expired without such an application being made or determination of the oral permission hearing if there is one.” 18.  The applicant then sought to renew his application for permission to apply for judicial review, submitting detailed amended grounds for his application on 21 February 2007. The oral hearing of the renewed application was listed for 17 May 2007 but the applicant, appearing in person at the hearing, withdrew his application. 19.  In a subsequent letter of 5 November 2007 from the applicant’s solicitors at the time of the judicial review proceedings to his current representatives before this Court, the former stated that the reason the judicial review application was withdrawn was that they, the solicitors, were without instructions from the applicant. They were informed by counsel that this was a “pre-LP” case (see paragraphs 30–46 below) and counsel felt that there were insufficient merits in the case to proceed to the oral hearing. 20.  The Secretary of State issued the applicant with removal directions to Sri Lanka for 25 June 2007. On that date the President of the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated to the Government of the United Kingdom that the applicant should not be expelled until further notice (see paragraph 5 above). 21.  In 2007, the Court received an increasing number of requests for interim measures from Tamils who were being returned to Sri Lanka from the United Kingdom and other Contracting States. By October 2007, the President of the Chamber had applied Rule 39 in twenty-two cases where Tamils sought to prevent their removal to Sri Lanka from the United Kingdom. On 23 October 2007, the Section Registrar wrote to the Government Agent, noting the increasing number of such Rule 39 applications. Having regard to the security situation in Sri Lanka, he further noted that Rule 39 had been applied on each occasion an interim measure had been requested by an ethnic Tamil. The letter continued:
“The Acting President has consulted the Judges of the Section about his concerns including as regards the strain which the processing of numerous Rule 39 applications places on judicial time and resources. The Court has concluded that, pending the adoption of a lead judgment in one or more of the applications already communicated, Rule 39 should continue to be applied in any case brought by a Tamil seeking to prevent his removal.
The Section has also expressed the hope that, rather than the Acting President being required to apply Rule 39 in each individual case, your Government will assist the Court by refraining for the time being from issuing removal directions in respect of Tamils who claim that their return to Sri Lanka might expose them to the risk of treatment in violation of the Convention.”
In his reply of 31 October 2007, the Agent set out the conclusions of the Home Office’s Operational Guidance Note of 9 March 2007 on Sri Lanka and the findings of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in LP. He concluded that in light of this information, the Government did not consider that the current situation in Sri Lanka warranted the suspension of removals of all Tamils who claimed that their return would expose them to a risk of ill-treatment. Each case had to be assessed on its merits against the available evidence. The Government was accordingly not in a position to assist the Court by refraining from issuing removal directions in all such cases on a voluntary basis. Finally, he stated that the Government would continue to make every effort to comply with any Rule 39 indications made by the Court in accordance with their obligations under the Convention and their long-standing practice. However, in the circumstances, the Government suggested that the difficulties posed by the increasing numbers of Rule 39 requests by Tamils could best be addressed through the adoption of a lead judgment by the Court. The Government stood ready to co-operate with the Court to bring such a case to an early conclusion. 22.  The Court has since applied Rule 39 in respect of three hundred and forty-two Tamil applicants who claim that their return to Sri Lanka from the United Kingdom would expose them to ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.