The High Court has quashed a 2009 Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision in a Georgian man’s asylum case, finding that the Tribunal had not clearly explained its credibility findings or how it assessed conflicting information about the treatment of gay people in Georgia.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 19 November 2014. The applicant, identified as Z.K., sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, which had rejected his appeal against an earlier refusal of asylum. He said he feared persecution because of his sexual orientation and described discrimination and attacks in Georgia, including an assault in which his partner was stabbed and later died. Those were his claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The judicial review application was filed about two weeks outside the statutory 14-day period. The parties agreed to a telescoped hearing, allowing the court to consider the substantive challenge alongside the application for leave. The judge extended time and granted leave on grounds concerning the Tribunal’s credibility reasoning and its treatment of country of origin information. He found no substance in the separate challenge to the standard of proof.
The judge said the Tribunal’s decision was confusing and did not make clear which parts of the applicant’s account it accepted. In particular, it did not expressly determine whether he was homosexual or whether he had experienced the discrimination and abuse he described. The judge said adverse comments about the applicant’s knowledge of the gay community in T’blisi suggested that his claimed sexual orientation may have been rejected, but the Tribunal had not stated that conclusion clearly or given reasons for it.
The court also considered reports cited by the applicant describing social prejudice and violence against gay people in Georgia, alongside other country information relied on by the Tribunal. The judge said the Tribunal had not explained why it preferred its chosen material or rejected conflicting information. He noted that the evidence about whether police were investigating the partner’s killing did not, by itself, resolve the broader issue of state protection.
The court did not review the merits of the asylum claim or decide whether Z.K. qualified for refugee status. It held that the Tribunal’s decision was fundamentally flawed, extended the time for the application, granted leave on grounds (ii), (iii) and (iv), and quashed the decision.