[2][3] The case laid out in definitive terms the criteria for the court to review a finding of mistake of fact leading to unfairness.

[6] The question of new evidence produced after the hearing but before the decision date was considered within the context of the power of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) to direct a rehearing.

The tribunal accepted that there was evidence that members of the Muslim Brotherhood were, in fact, being imprisoned and subjected to torture, however, the IAT believed that this was not an ongoing situation, and that this had been short-term detentions due largely to the elections held in Egypt during the year 2000.

The tribunal found that the Adjudicator was correct in not deeming the claim made by ′E′ to be especially persuasive and that being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood would not necessarily mean that he would be subject to persecution.

[2] ′E′ sought permission to appeal the decision, challenging the narrow aspect of the timing of the arrests; in particular, the finding of the link to the year 2000 elections.

New evidence, in the form of an additional Country Information and Policy Unit (CIPU) report of April 2003 was put forward to help substantiate the seriousness of the risk of persecution.