The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by an anonymised infant asylum seeker after finding that a statutory appeal had reheard her refugee claim and left no live issue about whether she should have been allowed to pursue judicial review.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 12 December 2014, also held that the child and her mother remain entitled to anonymity under section 19 of the Refugee Act 1996.
The child was born in Ireland in late 2010. Her mother, who came to Ireland from Nigeria in 2005, applied for asylum on the child’s behalf. The mother said she feared the child would face female circumcision in Nigeria and harm from a magic practitioner if the family resisted. The Refugee Applications Commissioner refused to recommend refugee status in July 2011.
The High Court refused leave to bring judicial review, ruling that a statutory appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was the appropriate route. While challenging that ruling, the mother also appealed the refugee refusal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, focusing on the credibility of the claim, and the child’s later application for subsidiary protection was also refused.
The Supreme Court considered whether the appeal concerning access to judicial review remained live after the Tribunal’s decision. It held that the statutory appeal was a full rehearing of the appealed grounds, with scope to present new facts, arguments and evidence. A finding challenged on appeal was displaced unless the Tribunal affirmed it. The earlier decision could therefore have no continuing effect on the appealed issues.
Because the Tribunal had considered the claim and affirmed the refusal, the Court said it was moot to decide whether the High Court was right to direct the child to the statutory appeal instead of allowing judicial review to proceed. The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying refugee claim afresh or grant refugee status.
On anonymity, the Court held that a person who has applied for refugee status remains covered by section 19’s restriction on publishing identifying details, including in later litigation. It dismissed the appeal and ruled that the child and her mother must remain anonymous in the judgment and reports of the proceedings.