The High Court found substantial grounds for A.A. to argue that a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing his asylum appeal should be set aside, after the Tribunal relied in part on an “incorrect answer” about the type of wood used to build Bajuni fishing boats without disclosed supporting information.
Mr Justice John Edwards delivered the judgment on 3 February 2010. The case was an application for leave to seek judicial review, principally to quash the Tribunal’s 31 July 2007 decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that A.A. should not be declared a refugee.
A.A. claimed to be a Somali national and a member of the Bajuni minority from Koyama. He said he fled in 2002 after being beaten, his wife being raped twice and their house being burned. Those were his claims; the Tribunal rejected his account on credibility grounds.
The judicial review application raised four complaints, including that the language analysis was flawed, the Tribunal failed to consider appeal submissions, gave inadequate reasons and reached adverse credibility findings through unfair procedures. The High Court rejected the first three complaints. It held that the Tribunal was entitled to assess the weight of the language report, had expressly said it considered the notice of appeal, and had given adequate reasons for its decision.
On the credibility complaint, the court focused on the Tribunal’s statement that A.A. had given an incorrect answer when asked what type of wood was used to build boats. The judgment said no country-of-origin information on that subject had been disclosed to the court. It found a clear and manifest error in confronting A.A. with the question and attributing an incorrect answer to him in those circumstances. The court said there was arguably a breach of natural justice and section 16(8) of the Refugee Act 1996, which concerns providing applicants with relevant material and information about its nature and source.
The court noted that the Tribunal’s decision rested on several reasons, and the wood question was one part of its broader assessment of A.A.’s knowledge of Bajuni life and Koyama. It could not be certain how much weight the Tribunal member placed on that point. For that reason, it found substantial grounds to argue that the entire decision should be set aside.
The judgment granted leave to pursue judicial review; it did not itself quash the Tribunal decision or determine that A.A. qualified for refugee status.