The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal by I.M., an applicant from Niger, after finding that the Tribunal did not explain how it assessed a medical report relevant to his credibility.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2015, Mr Justice Eagar granted leave to apply for judicial review following a telescoped hearing and ordered that the appeal be considered by a different Tribunal member. The court did not decide whether I.M. should be granted refugee status or accept his account of persecution.
I.M. challenged the Tribunal’s 10 October 2012 decision affirming a recommendation that he not be declared a refugee. He alleged that authorities in Niger had detained and tortured him because of his opposition to the government and his involvement in an organisation distributing aid. He also said he had been injected with a harmful substance and that his health problems followed. The Tribunal had rejected key parts of his account on credibility grounds.
A SPIRASI report, based on an examination in 2010 and submitted to the Tribunal in 2012, described physical findings as highly consistent with the account given and included a mental health assessment. The Tribunal referred to the report but concluded that it did not displace its negative credibility findings. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had not properly explained that conclusion.
The respondents said the report had been considered and pointed to differences between some of its descriptions of injuries and the conclusions drawn from them. They also argued that the applicant’s account contained too many gaps for the Tribunal to accept that he had suffered the persecution alleged.
Justice Eagar said the Tribunal had referred to some scars but had not addressed other parts of the report, including findings described as consistent with repeated beatings and the report’s assessment of the applicant’s mental health. The judge also noted that the Tribunal questioned why the applicant had not shown signs of infection before leaving prison, while the evidence was that he arrived in Ireland and was admitted to hospital within days of leaving detention.
The court held that the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to state what significance it attached to the medical report and, if it discounted the report, why. It said the Tribunal could have sought documents used by the report’s author that had not been supplied.
The court granted leave and quashed the Tribunal decision, directing that the appeal be dealt with by a separate member. It recommended that the applicant’s solicitors provide the Tribunal with all medical reports and letters. The judgment did not determine the underlying asylum claim.