The High Court has quashed two Refugee Appeals Tribunal decisions refusing refugee status to an anonymised Zimbabwean couple, and remitted both cases to the Tribunal for further consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 11 December 2014, Mr Justice Barr held that the Tribunal had not adequately assessed whether the applicants would face persecution if returned to Zimbabwe because of their claimed relationship to a Zimbabwean opposition politician, identified in the judgment only as T.M., and their perceived support for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
The couple had claimed they were targeted by Zanu-PF supporters between 2002 and 2007 because of family links to opposition figures. They said their farmhouse was burned in August 2007 and that they left Zimbabwe for Ireland the following month. However, information from UK authorities showed that people with their biographical details had been in the UK during the period they said they were persecuted. The wife admitted living in the UK from 2002 and marrying her husband there in 2006; the husband denied providing false information.
The Tribunal affirmed the refusal recommendations after papers-only appeals. The High Court rejected the couple’s complaint that the Tribunal had to consider submissions sent on 24 March 2010: the Tribunal member had signed the decisions the previous day, after the couple’s solicitors had been asked to send documents immediately. The judge found the delay was the applicants’ responsibility.
The court also rejected the argument that the Tribunal was required to send documents about the husband’s claimed siblings to the Refugee Applications Commissioner for further authentication. The statutory power to request further inquiries was discretionary, and the judge said a further attempt at authentication might have been futile.
But the Tribunal’s decision did not mention the couple’s request for such an inquiry or give reasons for declining it. The judge held that fair procedures required the Tribunal to state its decision and disclose its essential rationale.
Separately, although the Tribunal disbelieved the couple’s account of past persecution, it still had to assess the forward-looking risk arising from their claimed family and political connections. It had not determined whether they were related to T.M., how they might be perceived in Zimbabwe, or whether that could expose them to persecution. The court therefore quashed both decisions dated 23 March 2010 and remitted the matters to the Tribunal. It did not itself grant refugee status or decide the underlying claims.