The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing a Sudanese man’s asylum appeal, finding that errors in its credibility assessment and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation undermined the decision as a whole.
In a judgment delivered on 17 January 2014, Ms Justice M. H. Clark said the Tribunal had failed to give adequate consideration to Amnesty International documents and other material supporting the applicant’s account. The court said it was not deciding the asylum claim itself: it set aside the Tribunal’s decision and remitted the appeal.
The applicant said he faced persecution in Sudan because of his human-rights work and past treatment by state security forces. His appeal was supported by documents including medical reports, photographs of injuries, records relating to his work as a doctor, and letters from Amnesty International. Two witnesses also gave evidence at the appeal hearing.
The Tribunal refused the appeal in August 2011, finding the applicant not credible. It questioned his use of a nickname, rejected parts of his account of abduction and torture, and considered that he could obtain state protection or relocate to Juba, in what was then South Sudan.
On judicial review, the respondents accepted that the Tribunal had erred on state protection and internal relocation, but argued those findings could be separated from its credibility assessment. The High Court rejected that position. It said the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant had not reported the alleged abuse to police was contradicted by documents and witness evidence. The court also found that the relocation assessment relied on an incorrect understanding of the applicant’s education and political ties, and that the Tribunal had not properly addressed submissions disputing his ability to relocate to South Sudan.
The court separately concluded that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate regard to Amnesty International’s letters, which supported the applicant’s account and described the risk he would face if returned. It also found that rejecting a medical report because it did not use the language of the Istanbul Protocol was not an adequate reason. The court held that the credibility findings were unsustainable.
The judgment said the Tribunal’s errors affected the legality, fairness and constitutionality of the decision as a whole. The court quashed the decision, remitted the appeal and awarded the applicant his costs. It expressed hope that the new appeal would be heard humanely and expeditiously.