The High Court has quashed part of an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision concerning a Nigerian family’s protection claims and sent the matter back to the tribunal for further consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 23 September 2021, Ms Justice Tara Burns found that the tribunal had not properly considered the second applicant’s claim that she could face discrimination or violence because of her mental illness. The court ordered partial certiorari of the tribunal’s decision on that issue and awarded the applicants their costs against the respondents.
The family sought international protection after arriving in Ireland in 2015. Their claim initially centred on an allegation that the second applicant had escaped baby smugglers in Nigeria, who were then pursuing the family. Earlier protection decisions rejected the claim as lacking credibility. Those credibility findings were not the focus of the High Court’s order.
The second applicant had documented mental health difficulties, including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. The tribunal accepted those symptoms and noted evidence that mental health treatment in Nigeria was limited and that people with mental illness faced neglect and social stigma. It nevertheless concluded she had not shown a real risk of persecution through discrimination or violence, reasoning that she did not present as someone with a noticeable mental disability and had strong support from her husband.
The High Court said that reasoning assumed appropriate treatment would be available to her. Given that she had previously appeared before the tribunal in a dissociated state, the tribunal needed to consider the consequences of a lack of treatment for her accepted condition when assessing the discrimination and violence claim. The judge held that the tribunal’s conclusion about her presentation was irrational and that it had not properly considered this part of her claim.
The court did not overturn the tribunal’s separate determination on whether she would face persecution through denial of medical treatment. The judgment states that this aspect had not been challenged and that the tribunal was entitled to reach its decision on it. The matter remitted to the tribunal is limited to further consideration of the mental health issues identified by the High Court.