Asylum Seeker Had Himself Tortured With Iron Bars to Avoid Returning to Sri Lanka

  1. Home
  2. World
By Heat Street Staff | 5:45 am, April 24, 2017
Read More

An asylum seeker deliberately underwent torture with hot iron bars so that he could remain in Britain, judges have ruled.

The 35-year-old man from Sri Lanka claimed that five scars on his back proved he had been mistreated by authorities in his home country.

However, the Court of Appeal has rejected this version of events, concluding that he probably consented to receiving the injuries as part of a scam known as “self-infliction by proxy” or SIBP.

The court’s ruling stated that a “cooperative and clandestine” doctor may even have put the man under general anesthetic while the heated iron bars were placed on his skin.

The man arrived in the UK in 2011 on a fake passport and then claimed asylum. As part of his bid to dodge deportation, he is thought to have spent a considerable amount of taxpayers money in order to pay his legal bills.

In a 22,000-word appeal ruling, one of Britain’s most senior judges, Lord Justice Sales, questioned why the unnamed Sri Lankan had not experienced any significant infection having been burned.

The man alleges he was detained by authorities following a 2007 attack on Colombo Airport by the terror group the Tamil Tigers, to which he was suspected of having a link.

His torture supposedly occurred in August 2009, where it was claimed he “felt intense pain from the first burn” before losing consciousness while receiving other burns. A medical report from a professor supported his story.

The man also claimed he would face “a real risk of persecution” if deported because authorities would regard him as having been “actively involved” with the Tamil Tigers.

In a majority decision, Lord Justice Sales and another senior judge, Lord Justice Patten, rejected the challenge by the claimant, who was identified only by the initials KV.

The Ministry of Justice refused to confirm whether he is receiving legal aid. The Home Office would not say whether he is in custody pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.

The man may have the right to appeal against the ruling.