The High Court refused Ilija Pasic leave to seek judicial review of a decision rejecting his appeal for refugee status, finding that he had not shown substantial grounds for the challenge.
Mr Justice Michael Peart gave judgment on 23 February 2005. The application sought to quash the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s decision not to recommend refugee status, and sought other declarations and an order requiring the Tribunal to hear the appeal. The court’s decision concerned whether leave to bring judicial review proceedings should be granted; it did not itself determine a fresh asylum claim.
Mr Pasic, a Croatian national of Serbian ethnicity, said he feared persecution in Croatia. His accounts included threats and intimidation, the shooting of his dog, theft of fruit from his family’s orchard, and mistreatment by other soldiers during compulsory service in the Croatian army. He also described psychological distress linked to wartime experiences.
The Tribunal had rejected his appeal, citing credibility concerns and his failure to report incidents to authorities or seek asylum during three short visits to Italy. In the judicial review application, his counsel argued that the Tribunal had wrongly treated the failure to report as negating a well-founded fear, failed to assess the availability of state protection, and did not properly consider the combined effect of the reported incidents.
The judge said the court was reviewing the legality of the decision-making process, not deciding the merits afresh. He considered that the applicant’s explanation for not reporting the incidents was not supported by cogent evidence, while country information considered in the asylum process indicated progress in protection for local Serbs by 2002. The Tribunal was entitled to have regard to that material, the judge said.
The judge also found it was open to the asylum decision-makers to question why Mr Pasic returned to Croatia after visits to Italy, and to reject his account of those trips. On the cumulative effect of the alleged incidents, the judge accepted that separate events must be considered together where appropriate, but concluded that the Tribunal had carried out that assessment and was entitled to its conclusion.
He found no reviewable error in the Tribunal’s treatment of the alleged army abuse or the hunters’ conduct. The court therefore refused leave to seek judicial review. It did not grant the requested remedies or direct the Tribunal to rehear the appeal.