The High Court quashed the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing H’s appeal and sent the matter back to the tribunal for fresh consideration. Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled that two fair-procedure breaches had occurred.
H, an Albanian national, sought international protection in Ireland on the basis that he was subject to a blood feud and would be in danger if returned to Albania. His application for refugee status and subsidiary protection was refused on 8 November 2018. The tribunal rejected his appeal in a decision dated 25 May 2019, which he challenged by judicial review.
The first breach concerned purported police certificates headed “Vertetiem” (“Attestation Letter”). The judgment said the documents, if authentic, confirmed, among other things, that H was involved in a blood feud. The tribunal concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, they could not be accepted as genuine official police documents. But the possibility that they were fake had not been put to H at the hearing or afterwards, so he had no opportunity to respond to the concern.
The second breach concerned documents H submitted in Albanian. The tribunal did not have them translated, and the judgment said the tribunal member had no pretence to knowledge of Albanian. As a result, the documents could not have been considered in substance. The judge said the court itself could not assess their materiality because it could not read them, although, as described to the court, they appeared to comprise relevant evidence. The tribunal had offered no good reason for proceeding without considering or understanding their substance.
The court granted the order of certiorari sought and remitted the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration. The judgment did not decide whether the certificates were authentic or determine H’s entitlement to international protection; it set aside the appeal decision because of the procedural defects.