The High Court has refused an Egyptian man’s application for judicial review of a decision excluding him from eligibility for subsidiary protection because of a five-year sentence imposed in Egypt for assault.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered judgment on 7 February 2025. He found no grounds to quash the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s (IPAT) decision of 24 May 2023 or grant declaratory relief. The court extended the time for bringing the judicial review application, which the State respondents did not oppose.
The IPAT had found that the man was the less responsible of two assailants who attacked two 16-year-old boys. It accepted that he hit one boy in the face, causing him to fall and suffer a head wound. The tribunal said the wound required 12 stitches, based on the man’s account; the translated medical report in the court documents described two head wounds and said stitches had been used, but did not specify their number.
The tribunal considered the assault’s nature and consequences, the procedure used in Egypt, the five-year sentence and mitigating factors advanced on the man’s behalf. These included his age, lack of previous convictions, limited involvement, vulnerability, reliance on his cousin and claim of self-defence. The IPAT found the absence of prior convictions counted in his favour, but concluded that, even with mitigation, the assault was a serious crime under section 12(1)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015.
In the judicial review, the man argued that the tribunal had failed to weigh relevant factors and adequately explain its decision. His grounds also challenged its treatment of his non-attendance at the Egyptian trial and its assessment of his fear of imprisonment. The court reviewed the tribunal’s reasoning and concluded that its assessment of the circumstances and his participation met the applicable legal requirements.
The IPAT had separately found a real risk of serious harm from prison conditions in Egypt for the purposes of assessing subsidiary protection, but excluded the man because it considered the assault a serious crime. It also found that he had left Egypt both to avoid serving his sentence and to avoid a revenge attack, so he was not excluded under section 12(3), which applies where a person left solely to avoid sanctions for a crime.
The tribunal had refused refugee status on the ground that the feared revenge attack lacked a connection to a protected Convention ground. The High Court’s judgment concerned the challenge to the tribunal’s decision; it did not grant protection status. The court listed the matter for 18 February 2025 to deal with final orders, including costs.