The High Court has ordered a fresh Refugee Appeals Tribunal hearing for an anonymised asylum applicant, finding that the first appeal decision did not properly consider all material parts of his claim.
In a judgment delivered on 11 December 2007, Mr Justice Herbert said the applicant’s account in his original forms described fears linked to his family, village and tribal connections, and to a perceived history of opposition to the Togolese government. He had described the deaths of relatives, an alleged attack on him and a break-in at his home. Those were claims in his application, not findings by the High Court.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 4 July 2005, affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation. The Tribunal’s decision focused on the applicant’s claimed membership and activity in the CDPA opposition party. It found his account of political persecution not credible, citing his limited knowledge of Togo and inconsistencies in his account.
The applicant sought judicial review. At the High Court hearing, his counsel relied on one ground: that the Tribunal had failed to consider all elements of the account and the risk of persecution on return, including the country information. The respondents argued that the appeal had reasonably been understood as based on political party membership and activity. They also relied on the solicitor’s appeal submission, which described the claim as based on political activities.
Justice Herbert found that the original application and questionnaire presented a broader account, and that the Tribunal’s decision did not address the applicant’s stated reasons for leaving Togo or fearing return. The judge said the decision referred to the questionnaire to note the absence of a CDPA reference, but not to its other answers about the applicant’s fears. The Tribunal had not made a general finding that he was wholly lacking in credibility.
The court also noted that the Tribunal decision did not refer to a medical report describing healed marks consistent with an old injury. The judge said that omission, by itself, was not enough to require a rehearing.
The High Court held that fair procedures had not been observed because material aspects of the claim had not been considered. It directed that the Tribunal’s 4 July 2005 decision be delivered up to be quashed and remitted the matter for rehearing before a different Tribunal member. The court did not decide whether the applicant qualified for refugee status or determine the truth of the allegations; those matters were left for the rehearing.