Case No. UKUT-00092-(IAC)

21.Mr McVeety indicated that he did not want to cross-examine the appellant. Mr McVeety made it clear that the respondent now accepted his credibility and the case requires a more objective and general assessment of the conditions for openly gay men in St Lucia. 22.Dr Mahoney was the only witness to give evidence. She relied upon her report dated 26 October 2018. She was cross-examined by Mr McVeety regarding her written report as well as an academic article she co-researched and co-authored published on 19 June 2017 in ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ entitled, “It’s just more acceptable to be white or mixed race and gay than black and gay”: The perceptions and Experiences of Homophobia in St Lucia. During the course of this decision, I shall refer to this as ‘the academic article’. Mr McVeety noted that the academic article refers to some participants as being openly gay in the north of St Lucia, where they believed they were treated with a degree of respect. Dr Mahoney acknowledged that some participants considered that they were able to be openly gay at times but that they still had to modify their behaviour dependent on where there were and who they were with. All participants regardless of where they lived or worked, concealed their sexual orientation when at work. This in itself calls into question the extent to which the two participants who identified the north as a safer place, were able to be openly gay. Dr Mahoney also drew attention to the self-confessed limitations of the academic article. The research involved a very small sample size of nine participants (of whom five were gay men, the remainder identifying as lesbian or bisexual) and the inherent difficulties in recruiting a large and diverse sample of St Lucian sexual minorities. As such, the study was described as “exploratory and its conclusions tentative”.23.During the course of cross-examination Dr Mahoney referred to statistics relating to the offence of buggery alluded to in her report. At my request Ms Wilkins compiled a table of these statistics for the years 2011 to 2017, which I refer to below. 24.Mr McVeety invited me to find that there is insufficient evidence to support the proposition that openly gay men face a real risk of persecution. He asked me to note the paucity of any media reports of homophobic violence in St Lucia. He submitted that if it existed, there would be reports in the media, yet Dr Mahoney was unable to point to any recent reports. Mr McVeety also submitted that the reports relied upon by the appellant clearly make references to some gay men living openly in St Lucia. Mr McVeety described the law criminalising gay sexual behaviour as being rarely enforced. 25.In a nutshell, Mr McVeety submitted that there is not in general a risk to the life or risk of sufficiently serious harm to an openly gay returnee on return to St Lucia. In contrast, the appellant’s case is that it is clear from the country background evidence that a real risk exists. In support of this, Ms Wilkins relied upon a detailed and carefully drafted skeleton argument summarising the relevant country background evidence. I refer to the representatives’ respective submissions in more detail, when making my findings on the evidence below.26.At the end of submissions, I reserved my decision, which I now provide with reasons.