The High Court refused E. O. leave to apply for judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed a recommendation refusing her refugee status. The court first extended the time for bringing the proceedings, which had been started outside the statutory 14-day period. It then found that the applicant had not shown substantial grounds for the challenge.
The Tribunal decision, issued on 30 November 2006, followed an appeal hearing and affirmed the earlier recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The Tribunal had found multiple credibility problems in the applicant’s account, including inconsistencies about her employment, documents, detention and journey to Ireland. Those findings were not challenged in the judicial review proceedings.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to apply the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, which had come into force while her appeal was under consideration. She also said the Tribunal should have reconvened an oral hearing to hear submissions on the Regulations. The court held that the Tribunal was required to apply them, but that the absence of an express reference to them in its decision did not establish that it had failed to do so. A letter inviting written submissions showed awareness of the Regulations. The applicant’s solicitors did not provide submissions within the period offered, and the court found no basis for requiring another oral hearing.
The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal unfairly disregarded a political motive for the applicant’s alleged role in removing files from offices in the Presidential complex, or prevented her from giving relevant evidence at the appeal hearing. The judgment noted that she had described money as her primary reason and dissatisfaction with the government as a secondary reason. The Tribunal was entitled to assess the evidence and give that secondary motive no weight, particularly in light of its broader adverse credibility findings.
The court’s ruling concerned leave to bring judicial review. It did not rehear the refugee claim or make a new decision on refugee status. It concluded that substantial grounds had not been shown and refused leave.