The High Court has refused an application by J.J. to quash a decision denying him international protection, finding that he had not shown good and sufficient reason for filing his judicial review application 43 days after the statutory deadline.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2026, Mr Justice David Keane also rejected each of J.J.’s challenges to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) decision. The tribunal had affirmed an international protection officer’s recommendation that J.J. receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection.
J.J., whom the tribunal accepted was a Christian man from Sierra Leone, claimed that members of the Poro Secret Society persecuted him for leaving the society and revealing its secrets. He also relied on a document presented as a newspaper article reporting threats against him after he chose Christianity. The tribunal said it could not verify the document’s source, but had read it and considered its contents.
The judge rejected the argument that IPAT had improperly separated its credibility assessment from its consideration of the article. He found that the tribunal had weighed the document alongside the other evidence and had explained why it did not overcome its concerns about vague and inconsistent elements of J.J.’s account. The judge distinguished cases in which evidence was treated as unreliable simply because an applicant’s general credibility had been rejected.
The court also rejected arguments that IPAT had failed to assess future risk arising from J.J.’s conversion to Christianity, disregarded relevant country-of-origin information, or made factual errors about what he had said in his questionnaire. The judge said the tribunal had considered the claim in the context in which it was advanced, and found that the questionnaire did not mention the specific alleged attack by six men or the identified society elder. The court did not substitute its own assessment of the underlying protection claim.
The separate time-limit issue arose because J.J. was notified of IPAT’s decision on 6 May 2025, while the judicial review papers were filed on 16 July 2025. The judge accepted that J.J. was personally blameless for delays by his legal representatives, but said their failure to act promptly was not excused by the explanation given. Weighing the factors, he refused an extension of time.
All reliefs sought were refused. The parties were directed to correspond on the final order, including costs; if they could not agree, they could file short submissions. The case was listed for mention on 27 October 2026 to make final orders.