The High Court has quashed international protection decisions concerning a Zimbabwean mother and her daughter after finding that a substantive complaint about the mother’s interview was not properly considered.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held that the applicants had not received an interview process meeting the requirements of the International Protection Act 2015 and constitutional justice.
The mother, who is of Ndebele ethnicity, claimed protection after alleging severe domestic and sexual violence by a Shona man with Zanu-PF connections and a failure by police to protect her. Her section 35 interview in June 2024 was conducted by a panel member accepted for the purposes of the proceedings to be a Zimbabwean national of Shona ethnicity.
After the interview, the woman told her solicitor that she had felt pressured and unable to speak openly about ethnic issues. Her solicitor wrote to the International Protection Office on July 11, 2024 seeking a fresh interview and explaining the alleged cultural and trauma-related concerns.
The IPO did not respond. A later report rejected the claim that State protection was unavailable and recommended refusal of refugee status and subsidiary protection. The court found no satisfactory evidence that the International Protection Officer who adopted that report had actually considered the solicitor’s complaint.
Ms Justice Phelan said concerns of this kind required a reasoned response because nationality, ethnicity and cultural background can be central to protection claims and can affect whether an applicant feels able to give a full account.
The judge also noted weaknesses in material relied upon in the report, including reference to a non-existent “Msasa Project”, unsupported statements about political informants and reliance on a description of Zimbabwe as a “social collectivist country”.
The court did not decide that the interviewer was actually biased. Instead, it held that the failure to address the complaint fundamentally tainted the process.
The section 39 report and section 40 notification were quashed. The precise terms of the final order were left for later agreement or further hearing.