The High Court has refused T.G.’s application to quash the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing his appeal, finding no legal flaw in the credibility findings on which that decision was based.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2022, Ms Justice Bolger considered a challenge to the Tribunal’s 10 June 2020 decision. The Tribunal had affirmed the recommendation that T.G. should not receive refugee status or subsidiary protection.
T.G., a Zimbabwean national, said he was taken and tortured for four days by men who accused him of belonging to the Mthwakazi Republic Party after he was overheard criticising the President. He said he falsely admitted membership to secure his release, was told to attend a party meeting, and later received threats. He also said he was refused hospital treatment without a police report and that his house was ransacked before he fled Zimbabwe. The Tribunal rejected his account on credibility grounds.
T.G. challenged aspects of that assessment, including the Tribunal’s view that it did not make sense he would be accused of MRP membership despite having no prior connection to the party. He argued that the finding was speculative and did not account for political violence in Zimbabwe. The judge said the Tribunal had considered country information on political violence and had identified a sufficient basis for its assessment, including that his account was vague and lacked expected detail.
The Tribunal had also rejected T.G.’s claim that a police report was required for hospital treatment. It considered a Chronicle newspaper report about another person being refused treatment, but found it unreliable because it was a single report unsupported by the country information before it. The High Court held that this was neither speculative nor irrational.
On medical evidence, the judge noted that the Tribunal had a letter confirming one appointment with a psychologist in Ireland, where T.G. presented with anxiety related to past experience and trauma. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the absence of further medical evidence or an adequate explanation for its absence when assessing his account of four days of torture, the court held. That did not impose a disproportionate or erroneous burden of proof.
The court rejected the application for certiorari. It did not make a final costs order: its indicative view was that costs should follow the cause and the respondents were entitled to their costs. The matter was listed for mention on 18 November 2022 for further submissions on costs and final orders.