The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision concerning S. M. and her minor daughter, A. M. M. The court extended the time for bringing the application after accepting that a two-week delay could be attributed to the Refugee Legal Services.
The application challenged adverse credibility findings about S. M.’s account of her alleged involvement with RCD-Goma and alleged persecution in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The applicants argued that the tribunal had failed to consider evidence, country information, a medical report and the daughter’s circumstances; made significant factual errors; and failed to decide whether return would expose the applicants to future persecution.
Justice Hedigan said S. M. had authorised the Commission and Tribunal to consider the mother and daughter’s cases together, which he regarded as a sensible and appropriate approach. In reviewing the credibility grounds, he said some alleged inconsistencies were not significant on their own, but formed part of a broader pattern. He considered the applicant’s limited knowledge of the organisation and the circumstances of the alleged arrest relevant to the tribunal’s assessment.
The judge said he might have reached a different conclusion on credibility, but that alone was insufficient to justify intervention. He accepted that the court should not substitute its own view for the tribunal’s assessment, and that it should interfere only where the process was legally flawed. He also considered the proposed “anxious scrutiny” test, but said its meaning was unclear and that, on either proposed test, the tribunal’s decision was not open to question at the leave stage.
The court refused leave to seek judicial review and ordered costs in favour of the Minister in the ordinary way. The judgment did not determine the underlying asylum claims or make a fresh finding on the applicants’ risk if returned.