The High Court has granted Asu Charles Bisong leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting his refugee appeal, on the amended ground that the tribunal made an unreasonable evaluation of his credibility.
In a judgment delivered on 25 April 2005, Mr Justice O’Leary said three aspects of the tribunal’s credibility assessment appeared unsustainable or questionable. Considered together, they could amount to substantial grounds for judicial review. The court did not quash the tribunal decision or determine the judicial review itself.
The three issues concerned the tribunal’s use of country of origin information about prison conditions that was not available to the applicant, its treatment of a letter from a traditional council member that was dated before the events it described, and its calculation of when Mr Bisong became self-employed. The court said each played probably a minor part in the credibility assessment, but all related to the same issue and could have a cumulative effect.
The judgment records Mr Bisong’s account that he was a member of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), was arrested in Cameroon, escaped custody and travelled first to Nigeria and later to Ireland. He arrived in Ireland on 22 August 2002 and applied for refugee status. Those matters are presented in the judgment as his allegations and background to the proceedings, not findings made by the High Court.
The court did not accept that the tribunal had failed to consider other evidence, including testimony from Gabriel Nkwelle. It said the tribunal was uniquely placed to assess that witness. The court also accepted that the tribunal had assessed credibility reasonably overall and had considered whether the evidence established a well-founded fear of persecution.
The tribunal had rejected the appeal in a decision dated 12 November 2003, affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation. The judgment’s opening summary describes the decision challenged as issued on 20 November 2003. The source does not explain the difference between those dates.
The High Court’s order was limited to granting leave on the amended credibility ground. The judgment does not record a final ruling on the requested judicial review or the other reliefs sought.