The High Court has set aside a decision refusing international protection to a Nigerian applicant, finding that the appeals tribunal should have offered him the chance to obtain a medical report about marks and scarring he showed at his hearing.
Mr Justice Barr ruled on 12 February 2024 that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) had not adequately cooperated with the applicant after this physical evidence emerged for the first time during the hearing. The court remitted the appeal to IPAT for a rehearing before a different tribunal member.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as T.U. (Nigeria), arrived in Ireland in March 2022 and sought protection. He said he was a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), had attended demonstrations in Nigeria and had hosted IPOB meetings at his father’s property. He alleged that security forces beat him at demonstrations and later searched for him.
At the November 2022 tribunal hearing, he rolled up his trousers to show marks on his legs, which he said resulted from beatings. He also claimed to have scarring on his shoulder and hands, though the High Court said it was unclear whether he showed those to the tribunal. He said he had not mentioned the injuries in earlier interviews because he was distressed after his cousin’s death. A GP report before the tribunal documented anxiety and depression but did not address the alleged injuries.
The tribunal accepted that the applicant had been an IPOB member, attended demonstrations, hosted meetings and suffered anxiety and depression. It rejected his account that state forces had beaten him, citing the lack of medical treatment evidence, his failure to mention the injuries in interviews and the absence of any reference to them in the GP report. It also rejected affidavits from his siblings about a later search, and refused his protection claim.
The applicant argued in the High Court that the tribunal should have adjourned to allow medical evidence about whether the marks were consistent with beatings. Justice Barr found that such a report could have been significant to assessing his account and any risk on return. Given the new evidence at the hearing and the applicant’s accepted mental health conditions, the tribunal should at least have offered him the opportunity to obtain a report, or offered to arrange one itself. The court said a short adjournment would have allowed this.
The court rejected the other ground of challenge. It found that the tribunal had considered the country of origin information (COI), noting that its decision referred to and quoted from it. The court also held that the tribunal’s conclusion on future risk was not irrational in light of its finding that the applicant had not established past persecution or harm.
The court set aside the refusal and ordered a rehearing before a different tribunal member. It invited written submissions on the final order and costs and listed the matter for mention on 7 March 2024. The judgment did not determine the applicant’s entitlement to protection.