The High Court has rejected a Georgian former soldier’s challenge to the refusal of international protection after finding that the appeals tribunal had lawfully assessed his credibility and the country information submitted in support of his case.
The applicant, identified as G.T., said he served in the Georgian Armed Forces from 2006 to 2011 and fought in the 2008 Russo-Georgian war. He claimed that after taking part in veterans’ protests in 2019 he was detained and pressured to say Georgia had started the war at the instigation of former president Mikhail Saakashvili.
He left Georgia in October 2019 and later lived in Slovakia. He also claimed that in 2022 he travelled to Ukraine with other Georgian veterans intending to assist its defence but fled after threats from alleged Georgian security agents.
The International Protection Office recommended in November 2023 that he receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal upheld that recommendation in October 2024.
G.T. argued in the High Court that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider legal submissions and country-of-origin information, had placed excessive weight on missing documents and had failed to give adequate reasons.
McGrath J rejected those complaints. He found that the Tribunal expressly recorded considering the submissions and country material and referred to specific information concerning Georgia, including statements about the 2008 war and possible consequences for Georgians joining Ukraine’s armed forces.
The judge said the Tribunal was entitled to consider missing documentary support alongside inconsistencies in G.T.’s account, including differing dates for his alleged arrest and his time in Ukraine. The High Court’s role was not to reassess credibility itself but to ensure the Tribunal’s process was lawful.
The court also found the Tribunal’s reasoning sufficiently clear to explain why the appeal failed and to permit judicial review.
The application was dismissed. McGrath J’s preliminary view was that costs should follow the result in favour of the respondents, subject to further written submissions.