The High Court has dismissed an application by the State respondents for leave to appeal a ruling that quashed an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Georgian applicant’s appeal. The court said the case raised no meaningful point of law or public importance and that a further appeal would add to an already lengthy delay in her protection claim.
The application concerned the court’s earlier judgment in N.E. (Georgia) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal (No. 1), in which certiorari was granted against the tribunal’s decision. The respondents proposed three questions for appeal, concerning the court’s treatment of credibility, a document submitted by the applicant, and the delay in her application for protection.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the proposed questions mischaracterised his earlier ruling. He said he had not directed the tribunal to disregard inaccurate answers, accept a document, or reach a particular conclusion about the applicant’s credibility. Rather, the tribunal had to assess the evidence using a rational approach to the correct facts, and its reasoning had to acknowledge material points both for and against the applicant.
On the document issue, the earlier judgment had noted that the document was not easily falsifiable and that the tribunal had rejected it summarily because it lacked security features comparable to a passport. The judge said the tribunal remained responsible for assessing the evidence, but had to use a lawful method. He also said the main finding on that ground—that it was irrational to reject the identity card on the basis that it lacked passport-like security features—had not been challenged in the leave application.
The judge said the applicant had also succeeded independently on ground 6 of the judicial review, which the respondents had not raised as a basis for appeal. Even if their complaints about the other findings were accepted, that unchallenged ground meant the result would stand. He said the same applied to the unchallenged principal point concerning the identity card.
The applicant had applied for international protection on 18 May 2015. At the time of this judgment, the process had lasted four and a half years. The judge said further delay could dim memories and make documentary or physical evidence less available, and that prolonging the case would bring no clearly equivalent public benefit. He concluded there was no conflict of jurisprudence and no public interest in an appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed; the underlying protection claim was to proceed to a rehearing before the tribunal.