A GAY Pakistani man will have his case re-heard after Scottish judges dealt yet another blow to Prime Minister Theresa May over her hard-line stance on immigration while she was Home Secretary.

In a remarkable criticism of the whole immigration process in the long-running case, three judges allowed the gay man’s appeal against the Home Office, and senior Scottish judge Lord Malcolm wrote: “We have decided to grant the appeal. We can only hope that the long and unfortunate history…is not typical of immigration proceedings in the tribunal system.”

The man was told by May in August, 2013, that he would have to be sent home to Pakistan, despite a police charge against him in that country of homosexual activity and a newspaper report of that charge. Earlier hearings were told he faced possible life imprisonment and certain persecution.

READ MORE: Wee Ginger Dug: The latest big orange man to come out against independence

The Pakistani citizen, known only as AR, sought asylum and was granted it by one judge, only for May to appeal against that decision and have it overturned by a second tribunal judge.

Further appeals and counter-appeals followed before AR took his case to the Court of Session yesterday where three judges sitting as an appeal court allowed his appeal and ordered the immigration tribunal to reconsider the case.

Lord Malcolm delivered the written judgement on behalf of himself, Lady Clark and Lord Drummond Young. In it he summarised the long and complex history of the case dating back to Theresa May’s actions as Home Secretary in 2013.

Lord Malcolm wrote: “The overall conclusion of the First tier Tribunal was that the appellant had not established his homosexuality. He had fabricated his claim to further his asylum application.”

Lord Malcolm continued: “A number of the judges involved in the case have recognised both the low standard of proof required in cases such as the present and the difficulty which someone such as the appellant is likely to encounter when attempting to prove his sexuality. However, some of the judges have demonstrated little appreciation of these factors in their approach to the evidence before them.

“In the main, that evidence consists of the petitioner’s account, which in its essential elements is supported by a number of documents, two of them of an official nature, and all easily verifiable.

“To our eyes at least, they have the hallmarks of valid documents, albeit no doubt there is at least a possibility that they were fabricated, though, if they were, why would there be internal inconsistencies on points of detail?

“The appellant’s account is, to an extent, supported by a witness from Scotland who has stated that he was told about the appellant’s homosexuality and that he took him to gay clubs. There is a letter from a proprietor of such a club confirming his attendance, and also a membership card.

“There is no question that an openly homosexual man is at risk in Pakistan. He cannot rely on protection by the authorities (rather the reverse), and it is no answer to his appeal to predict that he will behave with discretion in Pakistan if that is caused by a fear of persecution.”

The written judgement was critical of the Home Office and various judges’ failure to consider all the evidence: “The decision-maker should stand back and view all of the evidence in the round before deciding which evidence to accept and which to reject, and on the proper disposal of the appeal.

“Similar comments apply to the lack of any proper consideration and assessment of the evidence from the supporting witness and the statement from the proprietor of the gay club. One cannot simply dismiss this evidence, or in effect ignore it, because one has already decided that the claimant’s account is false.”

The Appeal Court ruled that none of the judges who have previously been involved in the case will be permitted to sit on the new tribunal that will decide the gay man’s right to claim asylum.