The High Court has quashed a decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to reject T.B.’s protection appeal on the papers, finding that the Tribunal had not adequately considered whether the credibility issues required an oral hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 13 May 2022, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh determination of whether an oral hearing should be held. The court did not decide the protection appeal itself or determine whether T.B. should receive refugee status or subsidiary protection. It said it would hear the parties on any consequential orders.
T.B.’s application for protection was based on her account that she faced threats and domestic abuse from a former partner in Georgia. The International Protection Office rejected the claim, finding the alleged threats not credible. Because Georgia had been designated a safe country of origin, the appeal was subject to an accelerated procedure under which the Tribunal was generally to decide the case without an oral hearing unless the interests of justice required one.
T.B.’s solicitors sought an oral hearing, arguing that the appeal turned on adverse credibility findings. The Tribunal refused, saying she had been able to explain her reasons for seeking protection in interview and make written representations on appeal. It then affirmed the refusal of protection on 5 October 2020.
The High Court found that the Tribunal’s reasons did not engage with the case advanced for an oral hearing or explain whether the personal credibility issues could fairly be resolved without one. The Tribunal also raised concerns on appeal that had not been put to T.B., including her failure to seek help from support organisations. The judge said the Tribunal had acknowledged that some inconsistencies had not been raised during the earlier interview, but did not show that it had considered whether T.B. should have an opportunity to address them.
The court also considered the Tribunal’s failure to respond to a request to allow time for a psychiatric report. The report was obtained after the Tribunal decision and was not before it. The judge said the Tribunal’s silence left it unclear whether the request had been considered, and treated that as an additional fairness concern alongside the inadequate consideration of the oral hearing request.
The court granted an extension of time for the judicial review, which had been brought about a week late. It accepted the solicitor’s explanation that an erroneous passage in an affidavit resulted from a printing and compiling error and concluded that the delay was sufficiently explained, with no prejudice to the respondents.