The High Court found that a judicial review challenging an asylum decision had become moot after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal determined the applicant’s appeal and that decision went unchallenged.
Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh delivered the judgment on 6 March 2015. The parties had asked the court to decide the preliminary question of mootness, rather than the underlying asylum claim. The applicant, identified in the judgment as P. D. O., had sought to quash the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s refusal to recommend refugee status and a related decision requiring the appeal to be heard on the papers.
The applicant began the judicial review on 25 January 2011 and lodged an appeal to the Tribunal on 18 January. The appeal notice reserved the right to provide further grounds and documents, and said it was lodged without prejudice to possible judicial review. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on 14 February 2011, finding against the applicant on credibility and concluding that he was unlikely to face persecution on return and could relocate internally. That decision was not challenged.
The judge held that the complaints about the substance of the Commissioner’s asylum recommendation could have been addressed in the Tribunal appeal. Once the Tribunal issued its decision, the Commissioner’s recommendation had been superseded; quashing it would confer no right or benefit on the applicant.
The judge considered separately the challenge to the Commissioner’s finding under section 13(6)(c) of the Refugee Act 1996, which led to a papers-only appeal. He noted that an error in that finding could not be remedied through the appeal process. However, the applicant had not told the Tribunal that judicial review proceedings had actually been instituted, sought an injunction to stop the appeal, or later challenged the Tribunal’s decision. The judge found that the Tribunal had not acted unlawfully by deciding the appeal without reverting to the applicant.
Because the Tribunal’s decision remained in force, an order quashing the Commissioner’s section 13(6) finding would not undo it. The judge therefore held that the proceedings challenging the Commissioner’s decision had become moot. The ruling determined that preliminary issue; it did not decide the underlying asylum claim anew.