The High Court has set aside a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting Mahan Philippe Keagnene’s appeal, finding that parts of the credibility assessment relied on factual errors and unfair procedures. It ordered the appeal to be reheard by a different tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2007, Mr Justice Herbert reviewed the tribunal’s finding that Keagnene was not credible or trustworthy and could not rely on his unsupported testimony. The tribunal had given six reasons for that conclusion.
The judge rejected several challenges. He said it was for the tribunal member to assess Keagnene’s answers about his wife’s relative in Bouafle, and found it was open to the member to treat the lack of supporting documents for claimed employment and travel as undermining credibility. A separate complaint about the member’s refusal to adjourn the hearing had become moot, the judge said, after the hearing was delayed and later proceeded.
But the court upheld challenges to three of the tribunal’s six stated reasons. First, the tribunal treated Keagnene as having made no enquiries through the Ivorian Relief Association in Dublin about his uncle’s whereabouts. The judge accepted that this assumption had no evidential basis, although he considered that complaint alone insufficient to warrant relief.
More significantly, the tribunal relied on a document introduced by the Presenting Officer during closing submissions. The tribunal decision recorded that the document had been put to Keagnene and that his legal representatives received time to make written submissions. The judge accepted Keagnene’s uncontroverted affidavit that the document was first raised in closing submissions, had not been put to him during questioning, and was in French without an English translation. The judge found that written submissions after the oral evidence did not provide a fair opportunity to examine and respond to material of such significance. If admitted, the document should have led to an adjournment of the oral hearing, he said.
The judge also found that the tribunal misunderstood Keagnene’s evidence about his journey to Ireland. The tribunal had treated him as claiming that he travelled without documentation and was admitted without showing a passport. The judge accepted his account that he gave his passport to the pastor who arranged and accompanied the journey and dealt with immigration officials. The credibility finding on travel therefore rested on a factual mistake and unfair procedures.
Because the court could not know what weight the tribunal had given each reason, it set aside the entire decision. It did not decide whether Keagnene qualified for refugee status. The appeal was remitted for a rehearing by a tribunal member other than the member whose decision was challenged.