The High Court has refused a Georgian man’s challenge to the dismissal of his international protection appeal, finding that the hearing before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal was fair despite the member not questioning his witness.
Mr Justice Barr said the applicant knew that his sexuality and claimed relationship with the witness, PT, were in issue. He had an opportunity to give evidence and call PT, who was questioned by the applicant’s barrister. The judge said the Tribunal member was not required to tell a witness that their evidence might be found not credible before making such a finding.
The applicant had sought protection on the basis that he faced persecution in Georgia because he is gay. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal in April 2024, rejecting his account and his claim that he was in a relationship with PT. It accepted that PT was gay but did not accept that the two were in a relationship.
At the appeal hearing, the applicant gave evidence about his sexuality, alleged mistreatment in Georgia and relationship with PT. The Tribunal member questioned the applicant, but did not question PT. The member said PT had previously been assessed as credible in his own protection appeal and asked the applicant’s barrister to address any inconsistencies during PT’s evidence.
In the High Court, the applicant argued that PT should have been confronted with the matters that the Tribunal later considered undermined his credibility. The judge accepted that a fair hearing required the applicant to know the issues of concern and have an opportunity to address them. He held that those requirements were met: the applicant had been aware from the earlier refusal that his sexuality and relationship were disputed, had made written submissions, and had obtained an oral hearing and the attendance of PT.
The judgment records that the Tribunal’s credibility concerns included differences in the applicant’s accounts of the number of assaults he experienced and how others discovered his sexuality. It also considered the accounts of when the relationship with PT began vague and inconsistent. The High Court held that the Tribunal could assess and compare the evidence after the hearing; it did not have to cross-examine PT on those matters during it.
The court refused the relief sought in the applicant’s notice of motion and statement of grounds. It did not make final orders on costs at this stage. The parties were given two weeks to provide written submissions on the terms of the final order, costs and any other matters, and the case was listed for mention on 27 May 2025.