The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to a minor born in Ireland, finding that the Tribunal member had made her own medical judgment about the child’s serious bowel condition after seeing her at a hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2015, Mr Justice Eagar granted leave in a telescoped judicial review and ordered the matter to be reconsidered by a separate Tribunal member. The court did not decide whether the child qualified for refugee status.
The child, identified in the judgment as M.A.A. and anonymised throughout, was represented in her asylum claim by her mother. The claim was based in part on fears that the child would be accused of witchcraft because of her condition and appearance, and would face discrimination or violence in Nigeria. Her mother also raised concerns about access to treatment, sexual violence and female genital mutilation.
The Tribunal had refused the appeal after considering medical reports, a photograph of the child with a distended abdomen, country information and the child’s appearance at a reconvened hearing. The Tribunal member said she could see no distension on that occasion and was not convinced the child would face the claimed risks. The State argued in the judicial review that the Tribunal had considered the medical and photographic evidence and was entitled to make its assessment.
The High Court focused on the medical evidence. It referred to reports confirming Hirschsprung’s disease and describing the need for regular specialist paediatric and dietetic care. The judgment said it was unclear whether the Tribunal had accepted the diagnosis, and concluded that its decision on the condition was based on the member’s observation of the child rather than the medical reports.
Justice Eagar said it was open to the Tribunal to obtain a report from the child’s consultant paediatrician or another consultant, but it had not done so. Instead, the member made her own medical judgment from observing the child. The court held that this was sufficient to quash the decision.
The court did not determine the other challenges concerning the standard of proof, gender-based violence or internal relocation, saying there was no need to decide them once the Tribunal decision had to be set aside. The case was remitted for reconsideration by a separate member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.