The High Court refused T. R. T. leave to seek judicial review of decisions by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, finding no special circumstances to justify challenging the Commissioner’s decision after the appeal had been decided and no substantial grounds to challenge the Tribunal’s decision.
The ruling did not decide the separate application concerning the Minister’s decision. Justice Dunne said she would hear further submissions on that issue.
The judgment, delivered on 4 May 2007, concerns an asylum claim by a woman who said she fled N. after threats connected to her late husband’s family and a secret sect. She said her son had been threatened over a proposed initiation, later died after being deported to N., and that sect members then demanded his body. These were her account of events, not findings made by the court.
The Commissioner recommended refusing refugee status in October 2004. The Tribunal dismissed her appeal in November 2004. A deportation order followed in September 2005, and she sought judicial review in October that year, challenging decisions by the Commissioner, the Tribunal and the Minister.
On the Commissioner’s decision, the court considered whether it remained open to judicial review after the Tribunal had decided the appeal. Applying principles discussed in an earlier High Court case, Justice Dunne said late review of a first-instance decision after an appeal should generally be allowed only where special circumstances make it necessary to do justice. She was not satisfied that the applicant’s depression, trauma, age, the time available for the appeal or the Tribunal’s treatment of some material established such circumstances.
The applicant also argued that the Tribunal had relied on a central concern about her account without giving her a chance to respond, and had affirmed the Commissioner’s recommendation while setting aside some of the Commissioner’s material. The judge rejected those arguments at the leave stage. She said the alleged cult involvement was at the heart of the asylum claim and found the applicant had not shown substantial grounds for challenging the Tribunal’s decision.
The judge also addressed the delay in bringing the judicial review proceedings. She said there was little or no explanation for it, but, given her conclusions on the Commissioner and Tribunal decisions, the question of extending time did not arise.
The order refused leave to seek judicial review of the Commissioner’s and Tribunal’s decisions. The court did not determine the application concerning the Minister; further submissions were to be heard.