The High Court has refused to certify any of the questions proposed by G.A. and N.G. for an appeal against its earlier refusal of judicial review in an international protection case.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the ruling electronically on 14 October 2022. The applicants sought a certificate under section 5(6)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, which requires a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal be desirable in the public interest.
The court had refused judicial review and dismissed the proceedings in a judgment dated 23 June 2022. The applicants proposed nine groups of questions, including the duties to provide documents and evidence, when an oral hearing is required, time limits for challenging the refusal of an oral hearing, and challenges to Georgia’s designation as a safe country of origin. They also raised whether principles from the Supreme Court’s Zalewski decision applied to international protection proceedings.
Justice Heslin held that none of the proposed questions arose from the decision under challenge. He said that decision turned on the particular facts found from the evidence and the application of established legal principles. The applicants had not shown uncertainty in the law clarified by the judgment, or a point of law requiring an appeal.
The judge added that the earlier judgment had not found that the applicants’ materials were not “documents”. It had found that the materials provided did not objectively support their claim, while potentially supportive dental and business records had not been produced despite repeated requests. He also said the earlier court had found the applicants were on notice of the lack of supporting evidence and had an opportunity to provide information or explain its absence.
On the oral-hearing issue, the judge said the applicants knew from the 2 November 2020 decision that their appeal would proceed without oral submissions. The earlier judgment had found no good and sufficient reason to extend the time for challenging that decision. The judge also noted that the applicants had not challenged Georgia’s safe-country designation until after adverse decisions, and that the earlier judgment gave several grounds for rejecting that challenge.
The High Court refused to certify any of the proposed questions. The ruling concerned permission to appeal; it did not rehear or alter the earlier dismissal of the judicial-review proceedings.