The High Court has refused the substantive relief sought by a Congolese applicant who challenged a second deportation order, while extending time for her judicial review application and granting leave on specified grounds.
In a judgment delivered on 15 February 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered the applicant’s third judicial review proceedings. They challenged the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to make a second deportation order, dated 5 November 2013. The order was sent by letter dated 14 November 2013; the applicant said she received it on 18 November. Her proceedings began on 10 December 2013, slightly out of time. The parties consented to an extension.
The applicant’s asylum claim had been rejected, with the Refugee Appeals Tribunal finding her account lacked credibility. The Minister relied on that finding when considering whether her return to the Democratic Republic of Congo would breach the prohibition on refoulement under section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. The applicant argued that the Minister’s approach to credibility and the assessment of risks on return were unlawful.
The judge held that the Minister was not required, when making a deportation order, to reconsider the tribunal’s credibility findings. He also found that the Minister had adequately considered submissions about gender-based violence and a medical report concerning trauma and scarring. The court found it was open to the Minister to rely on a UK Home Office country policy bulletin, and to prefer its analysis to a report by the Justice First organisation, although the judgment criticised the Minister’s use of the word “credibility” to describe the report’s reliability.
The judgment noted that country information could support the possibility that failed asylum seekers returning to the DRC might face brief detention on arrival. The Minister had made no specific finding on that point. The judge nevertheless concluded that the reasons, read as a whole, showed the Minister was not persuaded that the applicant faced a risk severe enough to engage section 5. He said routine, relatively brief detention would not meet that threshold and that the decision fell within the range of reasonable conclusions available on the material.
The court extended time to the date the application was made and granted leave in accordance with specified parts of the statement of grounds. It refused the substantive reliefs and adjourned the proceedings to allow any consequential applications, with advance written particulars required from any party intending to apply.