The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to a mother and daughter from Cameroon, and ordered their case to be reconsidered by a different tribunal member.
In a judicial review judgment delivered on 19 January 2015, Ms Justice Stewart said the tribunal had not made findings on important parts of the mother’s claim. The court’s role was limited: it was not deciding whether the account was true, but whether fair procedures were followed and the tribunal’s decision was reasoned.
The mother’s account, as recorded in the judgment, was that she had been raped by her father and that the daughter was conceived as a result. She said her family regarded the birth as an abomination, that she and her daughter were accused of witchcraft and that the child was demanded for sacrifice. She also said the shed where they lived was burned down and that a taxi driver who gave them shelter later subjected her to months of sexual exploitation. These were allegations, not findings by the High Court.
The tribunal had refused the refugee application in February 2011, affirming earlier adverse credibility findings. It also concluded that discrimination against people with HIV in Cameroon did not amount to persecution. At the judicial review hearing, the applicants did not pursue their challenge to that HIV-related conclusion.
The applicants argued that the tribunal failed to assess the child’s individual circumstances and best interests, and did not properly examine the core account or explain its credibility findings. The respondents maintained that the tribunal had considered the circumstances and the child’s position. They acknowledged, however, that the tribunal had made no finding on whether the mother had been raped by her father or whether the taxi driver had subjected her to sexual exploitation.
Justice Stewart noted that the application form identified the mother’s father as the daughter’s father, and said the tribunal had not addressed that information, the country material about the treatment of a child born of incest, or the daughter’s birth certificate. The tribunal had also made no finding on the account concerning the taxi driver.
The court held that these omissions meant the tribunal’s credibility findings could not stand. It granted leave and certiorari, quashing the decision, and remitted the case for a fresh, de novo consideration by a different tribunal member. The judgment did not grant refugee status or determine the truth of the underlying allegations.