The High Court found that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal made legal and procedural errors in rejecting an Albanian woman’s application for international protection, including failing to assess whether her alleged stalker’s political connections affected her access to state protection. The court was satisfied that certiorari should be granted, but left the precise form of the order open pending further submissions.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 14 November 2019, concerns Ms B and three minor children, who sued through their mother. The family said they fled Albania after a former co-worker stalked Ms B, vandalised her husband’s car and appeared to shoot at him. The judgment says the family attributed a severed cat’s head left at their Tirana doorstep to the stalker. Their identities and those of the children are anonymised.
In a decision dated 6 March 2019, the tribunal accepted almost all of Ms B’s account and found the stalker remained a credible threat. It considered there were substantial grounds to believe that Ms B and her children would face a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm if returned. It nevertheless rejected asylum and subsidiary protection, finding no necessary link to a Convention ground and that the applicants had not shown that state protection would be unavailable.
The High Court held that the tribunal had not explained why the stalker’s alleged political connections did not affect the availability of effective protection. It also failed to apply the questions required by section 31 of the International Protection Act 2015: whether Albania took reasonable steps to prevent the feared harm, operated an effective legal system, offered effective and non-temporary protection, and whether Ms B could access it.
The court further found that, in the circumstances of this case, the tribunal had to identify country-of-origin information showing that protection might reasonably have been available if Ms B had made further reports or provided more information to police. The judgment noted that the information before the tribunal included a US State Department report saying personal, political or criminal connections often influenced law enforcement. It also found the tribunal failed to assess the alleged political connections as a relevant matter.
The court addressed Albania’s designation as a safe country of origin, saying the evidence showed Ms B had submitted serious grounds for considering that Albania was not safe in her particular circumstances. It did not determine the protection claim itself. It said it would grant the certiorari sought in the 11 April 2019 notice of motion, while reserving the precise form of the order for further submissions if needed.