[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Venediktov, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 2460 (Admin) (05 October 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/2460.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 2460 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		5th October 2005

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: The claimant in this case, Mr Yuriy Venediktov, is a national of the Ukraine. He left that country on 8th January 2004, crossing the border into Poland using his own passport. He then travelled to this country. He said he did not claim asylum in Poland because he wanted to learn English and he liked the United Kingdom. He entered this country in the back of a lorry on 10th January 2004. He said that he then went to assist some Ukrainian friends, but was found working illegally on a building site on 16th January and, having been taken to a police station, he claimed asylum.
2. He was interviewed on 21st January and his case, as it was expressed in his interview, very briefly, was this. He had, in early 2003, about a year before, become involved in politics, in that he had joined and worked for a party known as the Rukh party. This is a nationalist party which was opposed to the then president, Kuchma, and supported the rival candidate for presidency, Victor Yushchenko. As it is perhaps well known, there were elections in the Ukraine in due course, in 2004, which were rigged in favour of Mr Kuchma. There was a rerun which, in December 2004, resulted in the victory for Yushchenko. Since then he has been in power endeavouring to deal with the enormous problems, largely problems of corruption, and a division between the west of the Ukraine, from which the claimant comes, which has been more nationalistic and anti-Russian, and the east of the Ukraine which again has largely -- and this is putting it very generally -- been far more pro-Russian. The pro-Russian elements were supportive of Kuchma, and the anti-Russian elements supportive of Yushchenko. That, as I say, is a very crude and undetailed exposition of Ukrainian politics in recent times, but that roughly is the general situation.
3. The claimant's case was that, after he had become involved in the activities of the Rukh party, he distributed leaflets in educational establishments and organised talks with young people; but, more importantly, he collected signatures which demanded the resignation of the then president Kuchma. It was that that led to problems with the police, which commenced in about August 2003. He said that he was regularly arrested, detained and ill-treated and indeed on one occasion he was beaten so badly that he sustained a fracture of his cheek bone.
4. He said that the police demanded that he gave them the signatures that he had collected which called for the resignation of the president and they wanted to know where those documents were kept, and indeed asked him to work for them as an undercover agent to report on those who were opposed to the then president.
5. He was released from time to time and rearrested and re-detained, but never charged with any offence, nor did he ever seek redress from anyone in command. He said that there was no point in doing that, because the attitude of the police was such that he would not, and could not, expect to get any assistance. It was the threats from the police that persuaded him to leave the country and he fears that, if he is returned, those activities will continue.
6. The Secretary of State rejected his claim by letter of 19th August 2004, and certified, in accordance with section 94 of the 2002 Act, that the claim was clearly unfounded.
7. Before going on, I should refer to the legal position. Section 94 of the Act applies, by subsection 1, to an appeal where the appellant has made an asylum claim, or a human rights claim, or both and, by subsection 2, provides:

"A person may not bring an appeal to which this section applies in reliance on section 92(4) if the Secretary of State certifies that the claim or claims mentioned in subsection (1) is or are clearly unfounded.

"(3) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that an asylum claimant or human rights claimant is entitled to reside in a State listed in subsection (4) he shall certify the claim under subsection (2) unless satisfied that it is not clearly unfounded."

8. Since 2003, by virtue of a Statutory Instrument of that year, the Ukraine has been included as a country within section 94(4). That may sound somewhat surprising, but that is the situation. The result is that the Secretary of State is required to certify an asylum or human rights claim from the Ukraine as clearly unfounded, unless he is satisfied that it is not clearly unfounded, and that means, as Mr Berry inevitably has to accept, that he has to establish that the claim is not clearly unfounded in order to succeed in this claim.
9. There is some authority as to how that should be approached, in particular, in a decision of the Court of Appeal in ZL and VL v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 25. The court there, in paragraphs 56 to 58 indicated the appropriate test which applied to the then section 115 of the 1999 Act (the provisions in that section were the same as in section 94 of the 2002 Act).
10. What the court stated was that the test:

"... requires the Home Secretary to certify all claims from the listed states 'unless satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded'".

11. They went on:

"It is useful to start with the ordinary process, such as s.115(1) calls for [that is section 94(1) now]. Here the decision-maker will --

"1. consider the factual substance and detail of the claim.

"2. consider how it stands with the known background data.

"3. consider whether in the round it is capable of belief.

"4. if not, consider whether some part of it is capable of belief.

"5. consider whether, if eventually believed in whole or in part, it is capable of coming within the Convention.

"If the answers are such that the claim cannot on any legitimate view succeed, then the claim is clearly unfounded; if not, not.

"58. Assuming that decision-makers – who are ordinarily at the level of executive officers - are sensible individuals but not trained logicians, there is no intelligible way of applying s.115(6) except by a similar process of inquiry and reasoning to that described above. In order to decide whether they are satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded, they will need to consider the same questions. If on at least one legitimate view of the facts or the law the claim may succeed, the claim will not be clearly unfounded. If that point is reached, the decision-maker cannot conclude otherwise."

12. That is the test that I have to apply, and Miss Richards accepts that that is indeed the approach that is correct.
13. Thus, if I am persuaded that, on at least one legitimate view of the facts or the law, the claim may succeed, then I ought to allow this claim. True, it is, that this is still a review rather than an appeal, but nonetheless it is a review which is exercised on that approach.
14. Since this is judicial review there is, of course, a discretion in the court to decide whether or not to grant relief, but in a case such as this, the effect is to deny an in-country appeal. There is of course still the right to an out of country appeal, but that is a fairly useless right if there is indeed a return to the country of nationality in circumstances where there is a real risk of ill-treatment which would come within either the Human Rights Convention or the Refugee Convention. In those circumstances, if I were persuaded that the claim might succeed on the basis indicated, it would be a very rare case indeed for the court to decline to grant relief in the exercise of its discretion.
15. It is not usually the function of this court to determine factual matters, and again, as Miss Richards very properly accepts, this claim has to be approached on the basis that the account given by the claimant has to be accepted at face value, unless, of course, anything he says is so obviously impossible as to mean that no-one could properly have regard to it, but that does not arise on the facts of this case.
16. As will become apparent there are matters which do strike me as being improbable, and certainly there are reasons to believe that he may not, if he is able to lodge an appeal, persuade an immigration judge that his claim of ill-treatment is credible. But, as I say, that is not a matter for me at this stage to go into.
17. Going back to the circumstances, as I have said, the initial refusal letter was a letter of 19th August 2004. The Secretary of State set out the claim in some detail, and made the point that Rukh was a recognised political party and was able to participate in the most recent parliamentary elections, and it was not accepted that the activities that the claimant carried out on behalf of Rukh would attract the adverse attention of the Ukraine authorities. The point was made that, although the constitution prohibited torture, prison officials and police regularly beat detainees and prisoners, and there were numerous reports of torture, which merely adds to one's surprise that it was thought proper to add the Ukraine to the list of countries in section 94(4).
18. The point was also made that violations were not knowingly tolerated by the government of the Ukraine -- I say violations: violations such as were complained of by the claimant -- and the point was also made that there was an Ombudsman, but she was an Ombudsman who really had little, if any, teeth, because there was no significant enforcement authority, nor any penalties for obstructing the Ombudsman's enquiries. Overall, the view was taken that there was no real risk of persecution and therefore the claim was certified.
19. Now whether or not that certification was appropriate is, in a sense, irrelevant, because the situation since August 2004 in the Ukraine has changed fundamentally. I have already referred to the election of the new president, which means that the Rukh party is part of the coalition which is now in power. That, on the face of it, changes things dramatically, because there may seem now to be no reason at all why this claimant should be ill-treated for activities carried out on behalf of the Rukh party. After all, as I say, it is now a party which shares in power.
20. Further material was sought and obtained from an expert, a Dr Chenciner. His first report is dated 4th April 2005. He was asked to answer four questions, and in fact a fifth was added, which he identified as follows:

"1.1. Risk of persecution if any to the Claimant prior to Yushchenko's election on 11 January 2005.

"1.2. Impact of Yushchenko's election on practices of police force in Ukraine.

"1.3. Are the police forces in Ukraine accountable to administrators or legislators who are not directly accountable to President Yushchenko?

"1.4. Risk of harm if any to Claimant because of connection to Rukh party, from police or other state agents, at today's date, in the light of Yushchenko's election.

"1.5. Possibility of relocation."

21. He dealt with those matters in some considerable detail. He based his report, to a quite significant extent, upon information provided to him by a Dr Roman Zyla, who had recently been awarded a doctorate at the University of London for a thesis on corruption in the Ukraine and who, from time to time, was resident in the Ukraine.
22. I should add that Dr Chenciner had also given evidence to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in 2004 and 2005, in two cases which were concerned specifically with the situation in the Ukraine, and in particular with the system of registration there, which was in issue and which was material to the question of the possibility of internal relocation.
23. He indicated in his report of 4th April that there were no reports of persecution of, as he puts it:

"... extreme right wing political activists (such as Rukh and UNA-UNSO) pre 11th January 2005. In contrast, all reports that I have seen are allegations of extremist nationalists persecuting Jews..."

24. He goes on:

"However, Mr Venediktov stated that he was living in Kamyanets-Podilskyy a town with 103,600 population in 2003 in ..."

25. Then he mentioned a particular region in the west of the Ukraine. He described how he complained about being detained and abused by the police. He went on:

"West Ukraine is the heartland of extreme nationalism in Ukraine and voted overwhelmingly for the new pro-Ukraine president Yushchenko. During the Kuchma years his prime minister Yanukovich stuffed government positions and through patronage the police force with his Donetsk pro-Russian friends. In an election campaign that saw the attempted poisoning of Yushchenko, it is plausible that high and low profile extreme Ukrainian national activists in West Ukraine provincial towns would be targeted at local level by pro-Yanukovich pro-Russia police. Corruption of local government and police is widespread and Rukh is certainly campaigns [sic] inter alia on anti-corruption."

26. It is, perhaps, slightly curious to read later on in his report, in paragraph 3.1.2, that Rukh is described as a moderate nationalist party; as an alliance of two parties. He went on:

"Since independence, it is the third largest party, but with far less support than the government independent coalition and the Communist Party. Supreme Council elections on 27th March 1994, resulted in Rukh as third largest with 22 seats behind independents 238 and Communist 95, out of a total of 450 seats. In the March 1998 proportional representation election, Rukh gained an increased 9.4% of the vote and 44 seats. Rukh is still ahead but threatened by the fast-growing extreme nationalist parties, which may explain its January 2001 link with the small neo-Nazi Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine."

27. Certainly there have been efforts by Rukh to distance itself from the neo-Nazis.
28. So it is not entirely clear from Dr Chenciner's report how one should categorise Rukh and whether it is indeed appropriate to regard the claimant as being an extreme right-wing political activist. It is indeed surprising that Dr Chenciner is unable to discover any reports of the persecution of which the claimant complains and, as Miss Richards points out, he has produced no evidence at all of any others who were supporting Rukh, and presumably being active in the way that he was, having suffered in a similar fashion. It is not suggested that the claimant was carrying on a one-man crusade on behalf the Rukh, but if there were others who had suffered in a similar fashion, I would certainly expect there to be some evidence of that.
29. However, the claimant's account of his ill-treatment has, at this stage, to be accepted (albeit there are considerable doubts about its credibility). I go on to see what Dr Chenciner said about the risk of harm now. He dealt with that in paragraph 1.4 of his report. He said this:

"It is too early to say what Yushchenko's policy will be to his erstwhile electoral allies, some of the extremist nationalist parties. While it must be remembered that Yushchenko is pro-Ukraine as opposed to Yanukovich who is pro-Russia, it is essential for Yushchenko to unite the country and to maintain friendly relations with Putin's Russia. It is possible to imagine that the Yushchenko government will appear to distance itself from the extremist parties to please supporters in Europe and USA. One effect of that would be to officially ignore complaints of abuse of low-level nationalist extremists by police. In addition, as described earlier, the police at local level are unlikely to be changed for the time being so the Claimant's oppressors would remain in place."

30. With respect, that seems to me to be somewhat speculative, but there it is. He then went on to consider the possibility of relocation. As Miss Richards has placed great weight on that, I should deal with it in some detail. He said:

"In spite of the theoretical abolition of propiska resident's permit [I will come back to what that is] in order to relocate it is necessary to de-register at the former police station, which would alert the local police who are the Claimant's oppressors. It is unlikely that low level local police will be replaced for some time. It is likely that his oppressors who are increasingly desperate at the election result of losing their jobs would wish to frighten him into silence."

31. There is of course a degree of speculation involved there, as well. It is important, then, to see what the propiska internal relocation involves.
32. The propiska system was originally introduced in Tsarist times as a means of collecting taxes and enforcing conscription. It involved the need to register, and all Ukrainians under that system, which was in force when it was part of the Soviet Union, had to register with the local police, and if they tried to relocate would have to de-register and re-register. It was very difficult to relocate, and sometimes impossible.
33. In November 2001, the propiska system was abolished and it was believed, in those circumstances, that moving within the Ukraine would, and should, be much easier. But, according to Dr Chenciner, that is not the position. He deals with this in his report in paragraph 3.2. What he says is this:

"Dr Roman Zyla who is a Canadian of Ukrainian ethnicity recently was awarded his doctorate at SSEES University of London with his thesis on corruption in Ukraine which contained five detailed case studies (brief extract attached). I have worked on several asylum cases with him during the past two years and he has also written expert reports for IAA [that is the Immigration Appeal Authority]. He is currently in Kyiv. In response to my question of the current state of propiska and registration he just emailed his view and very recent experience with registration of his baby daughter Theodosiya."

34. Now that was, I regret to say, thoroughly misleading. I say that because we have had produced the communications from Mr Zyla upon which Dr Chenciner relied. The first is dated 3rd February 2003 and what it states, and this is from Dr Zyla, is, as far as material, as follows:

"The Propiska first -- good timing, as I have just had a very good conversation on the matter -- indeed the system is well known to have been taken apart -- at least among the intelligentsia. In other words the propiska system has been relegated to regulation history. The problem is that the systems that relied on the propiska still stand and they continue to operate. No-one dares not to have their propiska document and the authorities continue to give them out. No alternative form of ID has been planned as far as I am aware. So the consequences for any appellant -- the Propiska system although off the books is still very rigidly in place and continues to have authority from everything from housing, (Including sale and purchase of property) to pension benefits, from getting a driver's licence and the birth of a child and perhaps more ominously -- the access to social benefits including medical care. When I registered Theodosiya, I was asked to produce my propiska and as I did not have one I had to produce another document that explained why I had no propiska, the fact that I was a foreigner and held a [diplomatic] passport was not enough for the local registry."

35. How that could be said, in a report of April 2005, over two years later, to be a very recent experience and to fit in with the assertion that Dr Zyla had just emailed his view is beyond me. That was, I am afraid, as I say, thoroughly misleading, and importantly misleading, because it related to a time when there was no law in force which put a new system in place in lieu of the propiska. That occurred in December 2003. That is not referred to in Dr Chenciner's report at that point, and obviously was not referred to in the email because it was not in existence.
36. The second communication is one dated a year after the first, 23rd April 2004. What was said in that about propiska was as follows:

"While the old Soviet system of propiska is no longer in effect, a similar registration of residency is required. The difference between the residency registration and the propiska is that, during the propiska system, as you know, residency was nigh on impossible, so moving to Kyiv without propiska was illegal and very difficult to arrange. The registration means that you can move but you need to register with local authorities upon arrival. Legally there is nothing preventing you from moving. Local authorities still consider the propiska documents when registering residents. Where the real problem lies is in getting work, as without residency registration getting a job is not possible. Sometimes propiska documents can help, but if you have propiska documents from another place, an individual might still have difficulty obtaining a job. So the situation is improving but only in the large urban centres. Even in the outskirts of Kyiv the old propiska system is effectively in place."

37. It is to be noted that, in that communication, Dr Zyla does not refer at all to any requirement to de-register or to register with the police. He talks about the need to register with the local authorities upon arrival.
38. That is interpreted by Dr Chenciner in these words in his report:

"Roman Zyla's brief but comprehensive note states that the propiska system is still very rigidly in place and that he is not aware that any other system of ID has been planned let alone implemented."

39. That is inaccurate:

"While propiska may have been 'abolished', all the state control-systems that required propiska continue unaltered. If Mr Venediktov were to live without a propiska or whatever replaces it, he would be criminalised as an outlaw and he would be denied accommodation, employment and medical treatment."

40. Then he went on to talk about what happened in 2002 and 2001, which was not entirely material.
41. The conclusion of his report was as follows:

"Mr Venediktov's risks as a Rukh extremist nationalist activist in provincial towns in West Ukraine from pro-Kuchma pro-Russian police were plausible prior to the January 2005 oppositionist election victory. The methods of torture that he stated he suffered in detention are plausible.

"To judge from the current continuation of massive corruption in Ukraine at every level up to the election, and since then an unexpectedly slow start to uprooting corruption especially at low level, if Mr Venediktov were returned, he would likely risk further persecution in Kamyanets Podolski and neighbouring towns where he was detained. It would appear from the above that while the new president and prime minister are probably going to make changes at the top, their ability or willingness to fight corruption at lower levels or sack the entire police force, especially in the provinces, is questionable. Any progress is likely to be slow and there is no prospect for any short-term improvements in human rights abuses as far as Mr Venediktov stated, for example with regard to propiska or avoidance of his oppressors by relocation. The bitterly-fought election result appears to have polarized ethic-Ukrainians from West Ukraine who won, and pro-Russians who lost from East Ukraine, and that the new oppositionists pro-Russians who would naturally oppose Rukh which is anti-Slav are likely to act more desperately than before."

42. With respect, it seems to me that that conclusion is simply not justified from the material that was before Dr Chenciner. It amounts to little more than speculation.
43. Prior to that report, on 17th February 2005, the Home Office reconsidered the matter, and upheld its original decision to certify. This, of course, was in the context of what had happened after December 2004, and the new president Mr Yushchenko. The point that was made in their letter was this:

"Your client's original claim was on the basis of his support of the Rukh political party which allegedly lead to his ill-treatment at the hands of corrupt officials ultimately accountable to President Kuchma. However, as noted in the material above, the Rukh's party leader won the recent presidential election with a majority vote. Therefore, the individuals who your client claims allegedly ill-treated him in the past, namely the police, are now accountable to your client's own political party. 'Security forces are controlled by the President, although they are subject to investigation by a permanent parliamentary commission'.

"It follows, therefore, that your client has nothing to fear now. In addition, it is noted that your client was relatively 'low-level' within Rukh, and as such it is considered very unlikely that he would attract any adverse interest from those alleged."

44. Dr Chenciner produced an up to date report in September, in which he noted that Yushchenko had run into some difficulties and was still trying to deal, somewhat unsuccessfully, with corruption. He stated as follows:

"The lack of leadership and persuasive authority revealed by the recent events described above, as well as no impact on corruption by the Yushchenko government, likely imply that there have not been and are unlikely to be in the near future any effective changes at lower levels. The government or lack of government in Ukraine appears unstable and, from the top, there is a climate of old scores being settled. That means that any risks faced by the Appellant are unchanged from my first report, in particular in response to Solicitors questions 1.2 to 1.5 in section 1 of my original report."

45. So really he suggests that there is no change as a result of the events since the election of Yushchenko. So that really adds nothing to his first report.
46. Mr Berry has relied upon two decisions of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, to which he has drawn my attention. One is a case called IB [2005] UKIAT 00095; a decision of the Tribunal chaired by Mr Moulden and consisting of one other legally qualified member and a layman. It is a reportable decision, but is not a country guidance case.
47. That was concerned, in relation to propiska, with a claimant who had succeeded before the adjudicator, because he had run foul of criminal elements in the Ukraine who had demanded money from him and who had persecuted him, but his persecution had been condoned, in the sense that it was not investigated, by the local police: indeed, the claim was (and this was certainly true) that the local police were corrupt and were in the pay of the criminal elements. The fear expressed was that if he were returned he would be returned to the same police, and there was no point in seeking an internal relocation, because he would have to notify the police and would have to de-register also with the original police and so the local criminal elements would be notified.
48. Dr Chenciner gave evidence before that Tribunal. He said there that the propiska system had now been officially abolished, but that that was just a cosmetic measure introduced in order to comply with the requirements of EU membership. In practice, something very like the old system was still in place, and indeed provided an extra opportunity for police and officials to demand bribes for the extra paperwork involved (the demanding of bribes is not, in itself, persecution; of course if there is a failure to pay bribes and that results in torture and ill-treatment to which no protection is granted that could engage one, other or both of the Conventions). He went on:

"One must still de-register from one's old place and re-register with the police and interior ministry officials in one's new locality. These normally share the same building, along with the SDU, the old KGB. The police in the new location will check with the police in the old location. In the claimant's case, the police in Donetsk are likely to pass on what they have been told by the police in the new location to their friends in the Mafia, who will either track down the claimant in his new abode, or sell him on to local Mafia there."

49. The Home Office obtained information from the British Embassy in Kiev, which stated:

"It is indeed correct that the original propiska law was replaced by the law of the Ukraine on the freedom of movement and choice of places of residence effective left in December 2003. The new law indeed eliminates the propiska system which basically provided formal permission to live and work in a particular place. Now under the new law such permission is no longer required. However, the legal imperative for registration of citizens remains very much in place. On the basis of the foregoing, the citizen's resident to the Ukraine must be registered somewhere. Such registration, no doubt, being absorbed into the Ukrainian central databases. We are not able to comment on the integrity or otherwise of these databases, nor the possibility of information leaking out to those who may seek to gain advantage from it."

50. It is to be noted that that does not in terms say that the registration now has to be with the police, nor is there really any evidence about the circumstances in which those databases, if they exist, operate, but what the Tribunal then said was this:

"We agree with Mr Jorro [who was representing the respondent] that this backs up what Dr Chenciner says about the necessity of the claimant to register with the police wherever he decides to relocate in the Ukraine and the likelihood of information about him leaking out to those who wish to settle their account with him. In one respect the letter from the British Embassy goes further than Dr Chenciner who told us about criminals keeping records in their heads or on the back of envelopes, whereas they would appear to have access to corrupt officials and central databases."

51. With the greatest respect to the Tribunal, neither of those matters seem to me to follow from the evidence which was put before them. That case, in my view, does not assist at all.
52. The other case, which was an earlier one, was indeed a country guidance case, VS v Ukraine [2004] UKIAT 00242; a decision, again, of two legally qualified vice presidents, and one lay member. That case also concerned the possibility of internal relocation. The claimant in that case was not complaining about actions by the authorities, but persecution by Greek Catholics because he was an Orthodox Christian in the area in which he lived. One of the questions was whether he could relocate.
53. Again, Dr Chenciner provided evidence before the Tribunal, and what he said in paragraph 12 was:

"The appellant, in order to move to another area and comply with the de facto legal requirements would have to de-register with the police in his old home area and re-register in the new area."

54. But as the Tribunal pointed out he produced no reason in his report why the particular appellant could not do that. There was some suggestion that he would have to pay a bribe of a very large sum, but there is no proper basis for that suggestion. Accordingly, and unsurprisingly, the court there decided that relocation was possible and it was not necessary to consider in any detail whether Dr Chenciner's evidence about the need to register with the police was or was not accurate.
55. The Home Office has obtained information, which it has put before me in the form of a statement from a Richard Lederle, a senior executive officer, who in fact was responsible for the February 2005 letter refusing the claim. It came far too late. It relies upon information from the British Embassy, via the legal advisers that the Embassy apparently uses, namely Messrs Baker and Mackenzie, and the statement indicates that now registration is dealt with through a public utility company, and certainly the implication behind the statement is that there is now no need to register with the police.
56. That actually is not what the information given states. I have seen, thanks to Miss Richards who has produced it, the report upon which this statement is based. That suggests that there is a requirement to register with the police, although the point made by Miss Richards is that there is no evidence that there is a need to de-register in person with the police, and therefore there is no reason why the appellant should be identified by his enemies in his local area.
57. It seems to me that Mr Berry has good grounds for saying that that came so late that he has not had an opportunity to deal with it, and that it would be unfair in those circumstances for me to attach any weight at all to it, particularly as it is not clear precisely how informed the individual from whom this information was obtained was. It seems to me that that is right and I should not place any weight upon that statement and that information.
58. But I am afraid that does not assist Mr Berry. It seems to me that the report from Dr Chenciner, which essentially makes any case, if there is one, on behalf of the claimant, is one which I find I am unable to accept in the way it is put together and in its conclusions. I have already gone through it and indicated its deficiencies. It seems to me that it is wholly speculative in many respects, and it really is not credible that, even if the claimant had been, as I will assume he had, ill-treated in the way that he describes because of his activities on behalf of Rukh before the elections, the situation now would mean that he would be subject to such ill-treatment were he to be returned.
59. I have the very strongest doubts as to whether there would be any risk at all in his old home area, having regard to the situation as it is there. It is highly unlikely, as it seems to me, that the local police, however pro-Russian they may have been, would, in an area where the overwhelming majority of people were in favour of the present regime, act in a way which targeted those who were supportive of the new regime. But even if that were the situation, I cannot see that there is any ground to suggest that it is at all likely that there is any real risk that he would be targeted if he were to relocate to another part of the Ukraine. It is a large country, it has a population of around about 50 million, and, as it seems to me, there are plenty of places where he could go. The fact, if it be a fact, that he is required to de-register and to re-register with the police is not likely at all to mean that he gets into trouble wherever he may go in the Ukraine.
60. I am quite satisfied that the Secretary of State was correct in this case to certify the claim as he did, and there is, I am afraid, no merit in this claim. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
61. MISS RICHARDS: My Lord, there is no application for costs. My Lord, can I just make one very slight correction. I think your Lordship said in the judgment that Baker and Mackenzie were legal advisers to the Home Office.
62. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am sorry, the British Embassy, you are quite right.
63. MISS RICHARDS: Can I just underline that any defect in fully reproducing the respondent's text is entirely my fault and not Mr Lederle's.
64. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am not seeking in any way to blame you. I know the pressures. I have been in the position myself in my time, but it was, I am afraid, not entirely as it should have been.
65. MISS RICHARDS: No, I understand that.
66. MR BERRY: My Lord, there is just one possible correction. You referred to the case of VS, and you said he was persecuted by the Ukrainian Orthodox Christians. He was in fact a Ukrainian Orthodox Christian persecuted by the Greek Catholics.
67. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am sorry, I had it the wrong way around.
68. MR BERRY: My Lord, may we have a detailed assessment and public funding?
69. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes.
70. MR BERRY: Thank you very much.
71. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Thank you both.