The Supreme Court has upheld the quashing of a decision refusing refugee status to Romanian national Petrea Stefan after finding that relevant information he supplied was omitted from the English translation considered by the original decision-maker.
Stefan arrived in Ireland in 1998 and applied for refugee status. He completed a questionnaire and attended an interview in June of that year. His application was refused in December 1998 on grounds which included a finding that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and that aspects of his account lacked credibility.
However, part of Stefan’s answer to a central questionnaire question asking why he was seeking asylum had not been translated. The omitted passage referred, among other matters, to alleged threats against his children, difficulties obtaining work and the circumstances which he said led his family to move within Romania.
The High Court quashed the refusal in June 2000, finding that the original decision had been made without consideration of all the material Stefan had submitted. The Minister for Justice, the Refugee Appeals Authority and the Attorney General appealed.
Delivering the Supreme Court judgment, Ms Justice Susan Denham held that the refugee procedure contained two distinct decisions: an initial determination and, if invoked, a separate appeal determination. The State argued that the appeal mechanism could adequately correct any defect in the first decision.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument in the circumstances of Stefan’s case. It held that the omitted information could not be treated as immaterial, particularly because the original assessment addressed matters covered by the missing passage and made findings concerning Stefan’s credibility.
The court held that the first decision had therefore been reached in breach of fair procedures. The existence of a pending appeal did not prevent judicial review, and an adequate appeal could not automatically cure an unfair first-instance hearing.
The State appeal was dismissed. The original refusal remained quashed and Stefan’s application was remitted for fresh consideration by someone other than the official, Mr Cummins, who had made the original assessment.