The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an Egyptian applicant’s appeal for refugee status, finding that the Tribunal had not adequately considered a medical report relevant to his credibility assessment. The case was remitted for reconsideration by a different Tribunal Member.
In a judgment delivered on 10 March 2015, Ms Justice Faherty formally granted leave in a telescoped judicial review hearing and made an order quashing the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant had sought certiorari of a decision dated 24 August 2010, notified by letter on 21 September 2010.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.M., said he had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam while living in Kuwait and feared persecution in Egypt by state authorities and Sunni extremist groups. He alleged detention and abuse in Egypt, including sexual abuse. The Tribunal had made adverse credibility findings, including over inconsistencies in his accounts and his failure to mention sexual abuse in his asylum questionnaire or section 11 interview. It affirmed the Commissioner’s recommendation that he was not a refugee.
Before the Tribunal hearing, the applicant submitted a SPIRASI medical report by Dr Ciaran Leonard. The report described physical examination findings as “highly consistent” with the account given and recorded symptoms including post-traumatic stress disorder and avoidance of discussing the alleged abuse. The Tribunal noted that the doctor relied on information from the applicant, but did not substantively address the report’s clinical findings.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to weigh the medical and psychological evidence alongside his explanation that embarrassment and cultural sensitivity had prevented earlier disclosure. Justice Faherty rejected the separate argument that the Tribunal had treated the report as not independent evidence. She said the Tribunal had not expressly rejected its independence, but found its independent character had been too readily disregarded.
The court held that the report’s findings could potentially provide objective support and that the applicant’s reported tendency to avoid discussing abuse could inform the assessment of his earlier nondisclosure. The weight to give the report remained for the Tribunal. However, there was no indication that this feature had been weighed when assessing the applicant’s explanation. The respondents had also not persuaded the court that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the adverse credibility findings to a degree that excused more limited consideration of the report.
The court did not decide whether the applicant was a refugee or determine the truth of his allegations. It quashed the Tribunal decision because of the failure to engage adequately with the report and remitted the matter for reconsideration by a different Tribunal Member.