The High Court refused judicial review in three cases challenging the Minister for Justice’s decisions to refuse subsidiary protection to Nigerian applicants whose asylum claims had already been rejected.
In a judgment delivered on 24 April 2008, Mr Justice Charleton considered applications brought by Fr. N. and her two children, Ede. Em. and her son, and Susan O. The court found that the subsidiary protection decisions were reached through a fair process and dismissed the applications for judicial review. It did not rehear the applicants’ asylum claims or replace the earlier credibility assessments made by the refugee authorities.
The applicants argued that subsidiary protection, which can apply where a person faces a real risk of serious harm if returned, required procedures equivalent to those used to determine refugee status. The court rejected that argument. It held that the Minister could decide applications through a written process after the asylum procedure, and was not generally required to disclose additional country information to applicants or invite further submissions on it. The Minister had to assess the claims fairly, using reliable and up-to-date country information, and give new material fair consideration.
The judgment recounted different claims made during the earlier asylum process. Fr. N. said her family in Nigeria wanted her to lead an occult shrine and have her daughter subjected to female genital mutilation. Ede. Em. said she had been taken to Italy and forced into prostitution after being made to swear oaths; Susan O. described a similar claim involving a woman she called Madam Vivian. Those accounts had been rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
Fr. N. later submitted medical reports concerning her physical and psychological health. The High Court found that the Minister’s report fairly assessed her application, including the new material. It also found the reports in the Em. and O. cases fairly summarised the issues and country information, despite not referring to three reports submitted by O.
On the substance of the claims, the judge found that the Em. and O. applicants could live in another part of Nigeria and did not qualify for subsidiary protection on the circumstances described. For Fr. N. and her children, he found that protection against female genital mutilation was available in a substantial part of Nigeria. He held that health or welfare needs alone did not meet the legal definition of serious harm for subsidiary protection.
The court concluded that none of the applications presented materially new claims that had not already been considered in the asylum process. It refused judicial review of the Minister’s decisions. The judgment addressed the subsidiary protection refusals; it did not determine any separate decision on humanitarian leave to remain.