The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge by an anonymised applicant to the rejection of her international protection appeals by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT).
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys held that the applicant had not shown that the tribunal made a legal error in assessing her credibility, medical evidence, claimed sexuality or future risk. The court dismissed the application; it did not itself decide the underlying protection claims.
The applicant, identified as J.U.O. (Nigeria), said she had suffered physical and sexual abuse in Nigeria, including abuse by an uncle and an attempted forced marriage. She also claimed she had been threatened after arriving in Ireland. These were her claims, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal rejected her account and dismissed her appeals in a decision dated 14 March 2018. The High Court noted numerous adverse credibility findings, including inconsistencies and omissions in her accounts of relationships, alleged abuse and a failed UK visa application. It said many of those findings were not challenged in the judicial review.
The applicant argued that the tribunal had failed to give proper weight to medico-legal reports, including a SPIRASI report. The judge said the tribunal had expressly taken the reports into account and accepted that they supported aspects of her account. But the reports did not establish how the harm occurred, and the tribunal was entitled to weigh them alongside the other evidence. The judge also noted the tribunal’s explanation that some reported mental-health difficulties related to living in Ireland and in direct provision.
The court rejected the argument that the tribunal had wrongly assessed past harm or future risk. It said the tribunal had made no finding of past persecution and had rejected the main material elements of the applicant’s account. The judge also found no demonstrated error in the assessment of her claimed sexuality, a point he said had been only faintly pursued.
The judgment records that the court had granted leave to seek judicial review on 16 April 2018. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions, the court dismissed the application.