The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that had upheld a negative asylum recommendation. Mr Justice Cooke ruled on 16 March 2010 that no substantial ground had been raised to justify granting leave.
The Tribunal decision, dated 21 September 2007, affirmed a section 13 report and negative recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner dated 6 November 2006. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s account as lacking credibility. The court’s role at this stage was limited: it would not reassess credibility itself, but would consider whether the decision-making process contained a material defect of law or fact.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as L.D.E., said he was born in Luanda, Angola, and that his parents came from Cabinda. He claimed his father was an active FLEC official and that, after moving from Luanda to Cabinda in 2004, he was arrested, beaten and imprisoned following remarks critical of the Angolan authorities. He said he learned in prison that his father had been killed, escaped with help from a driver, and travelled through Namibia, South Africa and France before reaching Ireland. The judgment records these as the applicant’s claims, not established events.
The proposed challenge argued that the Tribunal had failed to assess whether the account was consistent with country information, to make findings on actual or imputed political opinion, and to give proper weight to medical reports. It also challenged the treatment of the applicant’s journey through countries where he had not sought asylum.
The court rejected those arguments at the leave stage. It held that consistency with country information did not itself establish that an individual account was true, and found that the Tribunal had given detailed reasons for disbelieving the applicant. The Tribunal had also considered medical reports describing scars and psychological distress. The court said the reported marks were consistent with the forms of mistreatment described, but could also have other causes and did not establish that the claimed events occurred.
The court concluded that the medical evidence did not undermine the Tribunal’s credibility assessment in this case. It refused leave to apply for judicial review. The judgment did not determine the underlying asylum claim afresh; it decided only that the proposed judicial review should not proceed.