The High Court found substantial grounds to challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that an Iranian Christian convert had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, focusing on the tribunal’s treatment of country information and evidence of intervention by Iranian authorities.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2007, Mr Justice Herbert considered an application for leave to seek judicial review. Under the statutory test, the court had to be satisfied that there were reasonable, arguable and weighty grounds for contending that the tribunal decision was invalid or should be quashed.
The applicant raised four specific criticisms. The court rejected the first, concerning the tribunal’s reference to the applicant having lived in an affluent area of Tehran without suffering economic consequences after converting to Christianity. The judge said this was an accurate and relevant observation, though not necessarily conclusive.
The court found arguable grounds on the second and third criticisms. The tribunal had accepted that Iranian law could expose converts from Islam to imprisonment or death, but considered prosecutions rare unless a person came to authorities’ attention, for example through proselytising. It concluded the applicant’s discussions about religion with visitors to his shop were unlikely to amount to proselytising.
Mr Justice Herbert said that assessment appeared to disregard evidence that the applicant had already come to the attention of Iranian authorities. According to the evidence before the tribunal, a young man’s mother complained to a cleric or local mosque official that the applicant was trying to persuade her son to leave Islam. A complaint was then made to police, who visited the applicant’s home while he was absent and removed religious items, including a Bible and a cross. The judge noted that credibility was not in issue and that the tribunal member had said he was impressed by the applicant’s evidence and supporting evidence from Rev. Jane Galbraith.
The judge also found reasonable, weighty and arguable grounds that the tribunal had given too much weight to selected parts of a British Home Office report and insufficient weight to other relevant sections. Those sections addressed the position of converts who publicly promote Christianity, including the report’s statement that apostate converts who began preaching were likely to face execution. The court said the material needed to be considered in the context of the evidence about clerical and police action against the applicant.
The fourth ground, concerning an alleged requirement to practise Christianity only in private, was rejected. The judge said the case did not involve evidence that the applicant asserted a right or obligation to evangelise publicly; the relevant issue was the possible consequences of perceived proselytising arising from the reported incident.
The judgment records findings on whether grounds for judicial review were arguable. It does not determine that the tribunal decision was invalid or quash it.