The High Court has granted a Georgian family leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld negative recommendations on their asylum claims, finding substantial grounds to question the tribunal’s credibility assessment and its consideration of evidence.
In a judgment delivered on 1 March 2012, Mr Justice Kevin Cross said the case was at the leave stage. The court did not determine whether the family qualified for refugee status or decide the full judicial review.
The family’s claims arose from alleged persecution after the defeat of Georgia’s former ruling party, the Georgian Citizens Union, of which the mother said she was a member. She alleged that Interior Ministry members attacked her outside her home, fired bullets through a window, threatened her by phone and tried to abduct her son. She also said her husband disappeared while she was in hiding. The judgment records that he was later detained by unknown men, beaten and injected with drugs, and escaped in April 2006. The family left Georgia in April 2007.
The tribunal had upheld negative recommendations after making several adverse credibility findings. These included an alleged inconsistency about whether the mother had been summoned to the Interior Ministry, differences in her name on political meeting passes, her account of her party position and her description of travel to Ireland. It also relied on country information and found the family had not sought police protection.
Mr Justice Cross concluded that several credibility findings were incorrectly formed. He said the tribunal and the mother had been at cross purposes over the alleged summons, and that variations such as “Sopiko”, “Sopo” and “Sopio” could be interchangeable. He also found the tribunal placed too much weight on the meeting passes despite other documents supporting her party membership, and that the travel account was detailed rather than vague.
The court further found that relevant documents had not received adequate consideration. It said summons documents supported the mother’s account, while additional identity documents could have supported her party membership. The judge also found the tribunal had failed to adequately consider the father’s separate account, including his alleged abduction, and had not separately assessed the children’s claims.
The court rejected a blanket criticism of UK Home Office country reports, saying decision makers may accept or reject such material. It did not decide whether the country information, considered alongside credible evidence, would lead to a different asylum determination.
Leave was granted on four grounds: cumulative credibility errors; inadequate consideration of relevant documentation; failure to consider or adequately consider the father’s personal circumstances, particularly his alleged abduction; and failure to separately consider the children’s claims.