The High Court granted an applicant leave to pursue judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing his asylum appeal, finding that significant factual errors and the treatment of his explanations made the decision unsafe.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McMahon on 9 December 2008, concerned an applicant identified only as L.L.M. He was from the Democratic Republic of Congo and had arrived in Ireland in September 2005. The Tribunal rejected his appeal in June 2006 after finding that he lacked credibility. He sought to have that decision quashed on grounds including factual error and inadequate credibility assessment. His separate complaint about delay was not pursued at the hearing after an affidavit explaining the delay was filed.
The account of the applicant’s history set out in the judgment came from the respondents’ legal submissions, and the judge noted that some matters were disputed. It said the applicant claimed to be a teacher and trade union member who took part in a school strike and an opposition demonstration. He said that after the demonstration, men came to his home asking for him, and that his uncle—who had the same name and profession—was arrested in his place and released after explaining the mistake. The applicant said he later left Congo with help from priests.
The Tribunal had questioned whether the applicant would have been singled out after the union strike was settled and senior figures were released. The High Court found that the country information cited for that reasoning did not say those arrested senior figures had been released. The Tribunal member had confused it with information about arrests after a separate political demonstration. The judge called this a fundamental factual error. The applicant had also sworn that the information was not specifically put to him at the appeal hearing; the respondents had not contradicted that evidence by affidavit. The court proceeded on the basis of that undisputed evidence.
The Tribunal also doubted the applicant’s account because security forces had arrested his uncle rather than him. The judge acknowledged the Tribunal member’s advantage in seeing the applicant give evidence, but said the applicant’s explanations—including possible mistaken identity and differences between where the uncle was arrested and where the applicant’s activities took place—deserved closer consideration. If rejected, they required more detailed reasons. The judge added that the member’s wording suggested this was a supporting, rather than principal, reason for doubting credibility. The applicant should have had a clearer opportunity to address the member’s reservations.
The court held that the factual errors and procedural concerns rendered the Tribunal’s decision unsafe and granted leave. The judgment granted permission to bring judicial review proceedings; it did not itself quash the refusal or determine the applicant’s entitlement to refugee status.