Lead Court of Appeal judgment finds tribunal erred on murder convict’s danger risk

In the lead Court of Appeal judgment, Lord Justice Peter Jackson found a tribunal wrongly held a Turkish man convicted of murder was not a danger to the community, and would remit one claim.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down judgment in KD (Turkey), [2026] EWCA Civ 349, on 23 March 2026. Lord Justice Peter Jackson gave the lead judgment, sitting with Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Dove. The hearing took place on 25 February 2026.

Background

KD is a Turkish citizen, now aged 54. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 2001 and claimed asylum, citing his Kurdish ethnic origin, his Alevi Muslim faith and support for a party illegal in Turkey. The Secretary of State refused that claim. An adjudicator dismissed his appeal in a determination promulgated on 29 September 2004, rejecting his account as fraudulent. His appeal rights ended by February 2005, but he stayed in the UK unlawfully.

In December 2005 he killed his wife. In December 2007 he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years. In December 2016 he was told he was liable to deportation, and he made fresh asylum and human rights claims. He was released in August 2018 under Probation Service supervision. The Secretary of State refused his claims on 23 January 2019.

The question

The First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal. It accepted his political persecution claim and the existence of a blood feud, but left the related human rights claim undetermined. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the First-tier Tribunal made errors of law that the Upper Tribunal should have corrected.

The decision

Lord Justice Peter Jackson would allow the appeal. He would set aside all of the First-tier Tribunal's findings and dismiss the asylum claim and the human rights claim based on political persecution. Because the human rights claim based on the blood feud was left undetermined, he would remit it to the Upper Tribunal for expedited consideration.

The reasoning

One issue was whether KD had rebutted the presumption that he was a danger to the community. The First-tier Tribunal found that he had. It relied on his single conviction, his conduct since release, a Probation Service assessment and rehabilitative work.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson accepted that judges have wide latitude in assessing risk and that appeal courts should not strain to find errors. He said the tribunal was bound to have regard to the fact that KD had committed a single offence, how he had behaved in prison and the view of the Parole Board. He nonetheless concluded that the tribunal's conclusion was one no reasonable decision-maker could reach.

In his view, the tribunal:

• diluted the seriousness of the offence by stressing it was a single offence;
• gave inadequate consideration to how serious the consequences of any reoffending would be;
• treated a reduction in assessed risk to intimate partners, from high to medium, as reassuring, although a real risk of repetition remained.

He said the community includes all its members, including those on intimate terms with a person. He also said a low likelihood of serious harm is a real likelihood, because it cannot be called fanciful.

Sources

• KD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 349, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 23 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/349