The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an applicant’s appeal after finding that the Tribunal had not properly considered medical and other supporting evidence when assessing credibility.
Mr Justice Barr ruled on 1 October 2014 that the Tribunal’s decision of 22 January 2009 should be set aside. He directed that the matter be referred back to the Tribunal to be heard by a different Tribunal Member. The judicial review concerned the Tribunal’s treatment of a SPIRASI medical report and a letter from Darfur Solidarity Ireland. The court did not decide the applicant’s underlying refugee claim.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.M.A.A., claimed to be from Darfur, Sudan. He said he had been detained for six or seven months and tortured. A medical assessment recorded scars and symptoms of anxiety and post-traumatic distress, and concluded that the physical and psychological findings were consistent with his account of detention and ill-treatment. The report said he needed psychological support.
The Tribunal had rejected the applicant’s account as lacking credibility, citing, among other matters, his knowledge of distances between villages, his claimed activities helping people during attacks, and the absence of identity or travel documents. It referred to the medical report but said its findings were at the “lowest end of the Istanbul Protocol” and considered it in light of the applicant’s overall testimony. The judgment says that description of the report’s finding was an error, but the judge found that error was not material by itself.
The judge concluded that the Tribunal had nevertheless failed to explain what significance it attached to the medical evidence or why it discounted the report. He found it was significant objective evidence supporting the account of torture and that merely reciting its contents, then discounting it by reference to the applicant’s overall account, was inadequate.
The applicant had also submitted a letter from Darfur Solidarity Ireland stating that he was a member of the organisation and belonged to a tribe in Darfur. The Tribunal decision did not mention the letter. The court’s final conclusion addressed the failure to give proper regard or appropriate weight to the combination of the medical report and the letter when assessing credibility.
The order quashed the Tribunal decision and required a fresh hearing before a different member. The High Court did not substitute its own credibility finding or determine whether the applicant qualified for refugee status.