The High Court refused leave to challenge a 2010 Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the refusal to declare H.J.E. [Nigeria] a refugee. The court first extended the time allowed to bring the proceedings, accepting the applicant’s explanation for the delay.
The judicial review sought to quash the tribunal’s decision of 17 February 2010 and have the case reconsidered by a different tribunal member. The applicant argued that the tribunal had not adequately explained its conclusions on credibility and whether his claim had a connection to a ground in the Refugee Convention.
The applicant’s account, as summarised in the judgment, was that he was next in line to succeed his father as king of Okogbo, in Edo State, Nigeria. He said that after his father’s death in December 2006, people in the community opposed his succession, beat him and later tried to kidnap him. He also gave differing accounts about whether he had sought police help. The tribunal rejected his account, citing inconsistencies including who had held the throne, what happened after the alleged beating, and whether he had reported threats to police.
The applicant submitted that those reasons were insufficiently clear and that the tribunal’s conclusion on a Convention ground was inadequately explained. The respondents argued that the tribunal’s adverse credibility findings were open to it on the evidence, and that judicial review was not an opportunity for the court to reassess credibility.
Justice Stewart read the tribunal decision as a whole. Although its analysis section was brief, she found that the earlier account of the evidence set out the inconsistencies underlying the tribunal member’s conclusion that the applicant was not credible. The court said it could not substitute its own view of credibility for that of the decision-maker unless the assessment process was legally flawed.
The judge found no basis to interfere with the tribunal’s findings and refused leave. The judgment does not quash the tribunal decision or order a fresh asylum determination. It records that the time for commencing the judicial review proceedings was extended, while the challenge itself did not proceed beyond the refusal of leave.