The High Court has refused an anonymised family’s request to quash a decision transferring their asylum applications to the United Kingdom for assessment. It also refused declarations that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had breached the family’s rights to private and family life or failed to consider the children’s best interests.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 24 October 2017, addressed issues left outstanding after an earlier judgment on 26 June 2017. The court considered the Tribunal’s decision of 24 January 2017 following an appeal hearing on 2 November 2016.
The mother told the Tribunal she had suffered domestic violence in Pakistan and the UK and feared her husband would find the family if they returned to the UK. She also feared deportation to Pakistan. The High Court said the Pakistan deportation issue concerned the asylum application itself, rather than the Dublin transfer issue before it.
The family argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the children’s best interests. They said three children attended school in Ireland and that their accounts and the mother’s medical report had not been properly considered. The judge noted, however, that Article 8 had not been raised in the written appeal or at the oral hearing. She said it was not appropriate to read an Article 8 argument into the appeal after the fact.
The judge added that even if such an argument had been made, the family’s circumstances did not meet the “especially compelling” threshold discussed in UK Court of Appeal decisions. She also found the Tribunal’s decision recorded that the children’s appeals were linked to their mother, that their interests lay with her, and that their views had been heard through their parents and submissions. The children had attended school in Pakistan and the UK before Ireland, the judgment said.
The court rejected the claim that the medical report had been ignored. It found the Tribunal had summarised the report, which described depression and PTSD, and had noted the mother was receiving counselling and medication. The judge said the omission of a reference to regular attendance at mental health services did not undermine the decision, given that no report from those services had been submitted.
The court therefore refused the requested relief. It did not quash the Tribunal’s decision or grant the declarations sought.