The High Court has dismissed a Congolese couple’s challenge to the refusal of their asylum appeals, finding no grounds to set aside the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision. Mr Justice Gilligan ruled on 3 July 2008 that the tribunal had given reasoned grounds for its credibility findings and was not required to assess the objective risk of persecution after finding the applicants’ accounts not credible.
The applicants, anonymised in the judgment as J. L. and J. M., are husband and wife and nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo. They sought asylum in Ireland in January 2005. The first applicant said he was a Pentecostal preacher whose September 2004 sermon was misinterpreted by authorities as a challenge to them. He claimed he was arrested, detained and abused before escaping during an ambush. His wife’s claim relied primarily on his account; she also said she had deserted the police force and that their home in Kinshasa was raided and destroyed.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal dismissed their appeals in March 2006, affirming the earlier recommendations against refugee status. Its member cited concerns including identity documents, the applicants’ account of their journey to Ireland, their failure to claim asylum in Belgium, and the lack of independent information substantiating the alleged arrest and escape. The tribunal also considered a SPIRASI report submitted after the hearing.
In their judicial review, the couple argued that the tribunal had relied on peripheral or erroneous matters, failed to address the central allegation about the sermon, and did not properly consider the SPIRASI report or the objective conditions in Congo. The respondents said the tribunal had explained its credibility findings and that the report had limited evidential value.
Mr Justice Gilligan rejected the argument that the matters considered were too peripheral. He said the alleged arrest, detention, escape and journey were surrounding circumstances the tribunal could examine, and noted that the applicants had appeared before the tribunal member, who assessed their evidence and demeanour. The court also found no independent corroboration of the claimed arrest, detention, escape or publicity about the first applicant.
The judge said the SPIRASI report had been noted and considered by the tribunal and that its contents had little probative value in the case. He concluded that, because the tribunal had found the applicants not credible, it was not obliged to assess the objective element of their claimed fear of persecution. The High Court held that the applicants had not made out a case for judicial review and dismissed the application. It did not make a new determination of their refugee status.