The High Court has dismissed a Ghanaian man’s challenge to the refusal of his international protection claim, finding that he had not shown any legal error in the appeals tribunal’s assessment of his credibility.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2022, Mr Justice Heslin said the court’s role was to review whether the decision-making process was lawful, not to decide the protection claim afresh. The applicant, identified as D.A., had sought an order quashing the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision, which upheld the earlier refusal by the International Protection Office.
The applicant said he feared his family in Ghana because he had refused to become a fetish priest and had burned a shrine. The tribunal did not accept his central account that family members had kidnapped and assaulted him. The High Court noted that the tribunal had accepted other parts of his account, including his Ghanaian nationality, date of birth, upbringing in a family with traditional religious beliefs, and later conversion to Christianity.
A central issue was the applicant’s changing account of whether he had gone to the police. His protection questionnaire said he had not reported anything, explaining that he was in hospital and believed police would not handle a spiritual matter. At his later interview, he said he had gone to a police station, but then explained that his earlier account was a mistake. At the tribunal hearing he gave further explanations, including that he lacked proof, feared a bribe, and did not trust the police.
The tribunal found those accounts inconsistent and described the applicant as evasive and hesitant when giving evidence. The High Court held that these findings were open to the tribunal on the evidence, including the differing explanations. It also rejected the argument that the tribunal had required the applicant to report persecution to police as a condition of being believed.
The court considered the applicant’s return to Ghana after travelling to South Africa. The tribunal had identified several reasons he gave for returning, including illness, accommodation difficulties, lack of money and a desire to sell his business. The High Court said the tribunal was entitled to consider the shifting explanations and whether the return undermined the claimed fear.
The judge said the tribunal had considered the medical reports and country information, and was entitled to assess the weight to give them. He concluded that the four grounds raised by the applicant did not establish unlawful process, legal error or a breach of natural or constitutional justice. The judicial review claim was dismissed.
On costs, the judge expressed a preliminary view that the usual rule—costs follow the event—should apply because the respondents had succeeded. He directed the parties to correspond about the form of order, including costs, and said short written submissions should be filed within 14 days if they could not agree.