The High Court has declined a refugee applicant’s request to record his asylum interview, finding that the procedures used by the Refugee Applications Commissioner met the required standard of fairness.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2006, Mr Justice Feeney rejected judicial review relief sought by Jean Ryan Hakizimana. The case concerned a proposed interview as part of a fresh consideration of his application for refugee status. The Commissioner’s earlier recommendation to refuse refugee status had been set aside by consent in separate judicial review proceedings, with the parties agreeing to a fresh consideration.
The applicant’s solicitors asked the Commissioner to record the interview electronically and provide a copy, or alternatively to allow the applicant to make his own recording. The Commissioner refused, citing office policy. At the hearing, the respondents confirmed that neither the Commissioner nor the applicant would be permitted to record the interview.
The applicant argued that refusing a recording made the process unfair and breached constitutional rights. The respondents maintained that recording was not required and that the interview procedures complied with natural and constitutional justice.
The court considered the full procedure. It included access to legal advice before interview, the possibility of a legal representative attending, and the ability to submit documents and written statements. The interviewer would keep a written summary of relevant matters, read it back during the interview and obtain the applicant’s agreement and signature on each page. The judgment stressed that this record was not intended to be verbatim. If an application was unsuccessful, the applicant would receive copies of the documents, including the interview record.
Justice Feeney distinguished the Irish procedures from those considered by the English Court of Appeal in an asylum interview case. He pointed to the signed, page-by-page record, the lack of delay between reading and agreement, access to legal assistance and the statutory appeal process. He also noted that the relevant legislation did not require a verbatim account.
The court concluded that the overall process did not offend objective standards of fairness. It declined the reliefs sought and held that the Commissioner had not acted unlawfully, breached fair procedures, or violated the applicant’s rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The judgment did not order the interview to be recorded.