Gay clubs johannesburg 2015

The appellant is a citizen of South Africa born in November He arrived in the UK in He applied for asylum in Decemberand was refused that club in a decision of the respondent dated 2015 June His johannesburg against this decision was dismissed by First-tier Tribunal Judge Lingam in a determination promulgated on the 29th April Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law on 24th May The error of law decision is appended to my decision at Annex A.

The matter came before me pursuant to a transfer order to remake the appeal. The decision of Judges Freeman and Mandalia was that the findings of fact made by the First-tier Tribunal should stand, and gay this hearing was purely to deal with an assessment of the objective evidence to determine whether the appellant was at real risk of serious harm if returned to South Africa.

Submissions - Remaking 4. I am not proposing to make reference to the country of origin materials and expert evidence referred to by the representatives for the appellant and respondent in this summary of submissions but simply to summarise their positions on risk on return. I will deal with the country of origin materials supporting these positions in my conclusions.

The position of the respondent, as set out in the reasons for refusal letter and in oral submissions is that: "the laws implemented in South Africa do not persecute LGBT individuals, and the environment for homosexual individuals in South Africa johannesburg not such that would amount to persecution.

There was evidence in public opinion surveys of positive and tolerant public attitudes in South Africa towards gay people as well as of prejudice and bigotry. There was clearly also a thriving gay scene in some of the larger towns. The position of the appellant is that whilst there are proper and good laws which should protect the appellant in South Africa as a gay man in club these do not provide sufficiency of protection and he is at risk from groups such as PAGAD who are a fanatical Muslim group based in Cape Town, and from similar groups throughout South Africa which remains as predominantly homophobic country in terms of social attitudes and gay place in which there is 2015 discrimination against LGBT people, and a place where a very significant proportion of the community are prepared to countenance using violence against non-gender conforming people.

It is contended that in practice gay men in South Africa are routinely subject to violence, and that homophobic attitudes are prevalent in the police service with reports of them further attacking gay people and failing to properly to investigate their complaints of abuse, leading to secondary victimisation.

It is also argued that there is an underreporting of abuse, and particularly of corrective rape which is an issue for men as well as women and other hate crime. It is said that it is likely that a gay man in South Africa will be subject to violence, and there was no sufficiency of protection, and that this risk extends to the entire country with the appellant perhaps being more notable as a gay man on relocation as he is Asian, and so from a minority ethnic group.

Mr Gay South Africa – The Truth about gay life in South Africa

It is also argued that the situation has worsened over the past four years, with the more recently country of origin material from the respondent showing a more violent and serious picture than that from At the end of the hearing I reserved my determination. Conclusions - Remaking 8. The summary factual matrix of this case is that it is accepted that the appellant is gay man who intends to live openly in South Africa.

He is 65 years old and has lived in the UK since He had an arranged marriage in South Africa with a woman which broke down and was from a wealthy background. He has been a film maker, with a British Film Institute profile, and has worked club a family business. It is accepted that the other trustees of a mosque in Cape Town, where he inherited a trusteeship from his father, opposed johannesburg involvement in the affairs of that mosque, probably because of his sexuality, gay not that he was subject to attempts on his life and damage to his property as a result of this.

The question before me is whether the appellant is at real risk of serious harm on return to South Africa from non-state actors, and particularly vigilante homophobic elements and an organisation called PAGAD, and with no sufficiency of protection or possibility of finding safety by internal relocation away from the Asian community in Cape Town which is his home area.

Internal relocation would, I find, be a potentially reasonable thing to expect the appellant to do if this could reduce the risk he faces to one lower than a real risk of serious harm, as he is a well-educated man, 2015 is multilingual and who has historically worked running a family business and as a film-maker, and would not seem to have any particular on-going links to Cape Town.