The High Court has refused an applicant leave to appeal its dismissal of a challenge to an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision refusing him subsidiary protection.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant’s four proposed questions did not raise an issue of exceptional public importance. The ruling, M.Z. (Pakistan) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal (No. 2), was delivered on 29 April 2019.
The judge had dismissed the applicant’s judicial review application in February 2019. In the present decision, he considered whether the applicant should be allowed to appeal that dismissal.
The proposed questions concerned whether a finding of persecution was enough to establish serious harm; how a decision-maker should assess medical evidence and possible effects of mental health on an applicant’s account; when an applicant could receive the benefit of the doubt despite adverse credibility findings; and when a judicial review court could use discretion to refuse an otherwise meritorious application.
The judge said persecution and serious harm were not interchangeable. He noted that the tribunal had considered whether the treatment amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment and found that it did not meet the required level of severity. The tribunal had also considered the applicant’s medical report and his explanation that possible cognitive effects of depression or post-traumatic stress disorder could account for inconsistencies. The judge said a decision-maker was not required to accept a medical opinion that an injury was probably consistent with an applicant’s account, and could weigh it against other evidence.
On credibility, the judge said the benefit of the doubt required an applicant’s general credibility to be established. He rejected the proposed question’s description of the tribunal’s findings as mostly positive, saying it had rejected the core account.
The judge also clarified that he had not dismissed the original judicial review on discretionary grounds. He had observed that discretion might have supported refusing relief if there had been a minor or legalistic problem with the tribunal decision, but said he found no such problem.
He described the leave application as particularly unmeritorious and refused it. The decision addresses leave to appeal; it does not grant an appeal or alter the earlier dismissal of the judicial review.