The High Court has refused an application to extend the time for a woman and her two minor children to seek judicial review of a decision refusing refugee status. The court dismissed the application because it was not satisfied there was good and sufficient reason for the delay.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Herbert on 8 May 2008, concerned an application for leave to seek judicial review. The preliminary issue was whether the statutory deadline should be extended. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had confirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that the first applicant should not be declared a refugee.
The Tribunal decision was dated 19 May 2006 and was notified to the applicants and their solicitors by letter dated 25 May. The statutory 14-day period ran from 28 May and expired on 11 June. The judicial review papers were dated 25 July, which the judge calculated as a 43-day delay beyond the deadline.
The applicant said in an affidavit that she had sought help from the Refugee Legal Service after receiving the Tribunal decision. She also described being directed to her current solicitor by a refugee support group in Tralee, through another Somali asylum seeker. The judge found that her account did not explain the inaction: it lacked supporting documents and particulars, and there was no sufficient evidence that she had sought the Refugee Legal Service’s help to challenge the Tribunal decision after it was notified. The judge also found no evidence that illness or language difficulties explained the delay.
The court considered whether the proposed challenge had substantial grounds. The applicant’s counsel challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of inconsistencies in her account, medical reports, travel to Ireland and country information. The judge concluded that the Tribunal had given multiple reasons for its credibility assessment and that, taken together, the inconsistencies and other matters could reasonably support its conclusion. He also found that the challenge to the Tribunal’s handling of information about Somali identity did not amount, on a prima facie basis, to a substantial ground.
The judge acknowledged submissions that the outcome could affect the children, who were dependants of the first applicant. He did not decide the broader point about how their interests should be considered, saying it had not been argued. He concluded that no other special circumstances had been raised and dismissed the application to extend time. The ruling determined the deadline extension application; it did not grant leave to seek judicial review.