The High Court has quashed part of a decision refusing international protection to a Sierra Leonean woman and her son, finding that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal did not explain why country information did not indicate a risk that she could face female genital mutilation (FGM) if returned.
In a judgment delivered on 23 April 2021, Ms Justice Tara Burns ordered that the risk issue be reconsidered by another member of the Tribunal. The court also awarded costs to the applicants against the respondents.
The woman said her mother had led a Bondo women’s society in Sierra Leone and that, after her mother’s death, she was expected to take her place and undergo FGM. She said she was held against her will for the procedure but escaped with her husband’s help. The Tribunal rejected this individualised account as not credible, including her claim that her mother had intended her to succeed as a leader.
The woman challenged the Tribunal’s decision by judicial review. The court did not substitute its own view of the evidence for the Tribunal’s. It found that the Tribunal’s reasoning for rejecting the individualised account was not irrational and that the findings were open to it, taking account of the woman’s written descriptions in her protection applications.
The court separately considered the Tribunal’s conclusion that, as a married Christian woman with children, she would not face a reasonable chance of persecution or be targeted for FGM. The judgment noted that country information before the Tribunal described FGM as widespread in Sierra Leone and said adult women could face the practice, including through force. The Tribunal had provided no further analysis explaining its conclusion in light of that information.
The judge said the court could not tell whether the conclusion was reasonable or irrational because the Tribunal had not shown its reasoning. At the hearing, the respondents’ counsel had attempted to supply reasons that were missing from the decision. The judgment said this underscored the insufficiency of the Tribunal’s explanation.
The court therefore granted certiorari only in respect of the separate assessment of the woman’s risk of serious harm if returned to Sierra Leone, and remitted that issue for reconsideration. It did not overturn the Tribunal’s rejection of her individualised account. The ruling did not determine whether she would face FGM; that question remains for the Tribunal to reconsider.