The High Court has refused an applicant leave to appeal a substantive judicial review decision concerning a proposed deportation to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs.
In a judgment delivered on 24 June 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered two proposed questions of law. The applicant argued that both raised issues of exceptional public importance that should be heard by the Court of Appeal. The judge concluded that neither had been shown to involve legal uncertainty requiring clarification, and that the applicant lacked the necessary evidential basis to advance them.
The first proposed question concerned whether the Minister, when considering refoulement and whether to make a deportation order, must assess submissions challenging adverse credibility findings made during the asylum process. The judge said the substantive judgment had found no general obligation to reconsider such findings at the deportation stage. In this case, he said, the Minister had given a reason for relying on the Tribunal’s assessment: it had heard the applicant, while the Minister was conducting a paper exercise.
The judge said a future case involving compelling new evidence about credibility might raise a different, fact-specific issue. He considered that the applicant had not brought forward such material in this case.
The second proposed question concerned whether a short period of detention for a failed asylum seeker could engage protections against refoulement or the United Nations Convention against Torture. The applicant relied on her gender and mental health, among other matters. The judge accepted that exceptional circumstances could mean even brief detention posed a risk of ill-treatment, but said the applicant had not shown she fell into such a category.
The judgment addressed the prospect of routine border detention before admission to the DRC. It said there was no evidence that a brief period of detention there would create a real risk of ill-treatment for the applicant. The judge also said a concession about detention in the DRC in a UK case did not establish her proposed point, and that material about risks to detainees over periods of months did not establish the same risk during routine detention at the border.
The court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It awarded the respondent the costs of the proceedings against the applicant.