The High Court has granted a Nigerian mother and her three children leave to seek judicial review of a refusal of subsidiary protection and deportation orders, finding grounds to challenge how the mother’s credibility was assessed and how the children’s best interests were considered.
The judgment of Mr Justice McDermott, delivered on 3 December 2013, concerns decisions made in February and March 2012. The mother and children sought to quash the protection refusal and deportation orders. They also challenged the procedures used and the consideration given to the children’s welfare and rights.
The mother’s asylum claim had been rejected. In refusing subsidiary protection, the Minister relied substantially on the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings. The High Court granted leave to challenge whether the Minister was entitled to rely on those findings without an independent assessment, and whether the mother had been given a fair opportunity to address them. The court specified that the challenge included the absence of a fresh opportunity to revisit the protection claim and a fresh credibility assessment; it also listed whether an oral hearing should have been provided.
The court separately found substantial grounds to challenge the deportation decisions. It said the best interests of the children, particularly the fourth applicant, should have been identified and treated as a primary consideration, and that his physical and mental disabilities may not have been adequately considered. The fourth applicant had severe learning difficulties and epilepsy, with frequent seizures and ongoing medical, educational and support needs described in reports before the Minister. The judge also allowed challenges alleging that the deportation decisions were disproportionate and that the assessment of the family’s private-life rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was flawed.
These are grounds for a judicial review challenge, not findings that the protection refusal or deportation orders were unlawful. The court refused leave on the other grounds advanced, including the challenge to the subsidiary-protection decision based on the children’s best interests. It also extended time for the application, finding no blameworthiness by the applicants and considering the children’s interests.
The court directed that the deportation orders should not be acted on while the proceedings continue, so the family’s existing position would be maintained. It said the form of any necessary order would be discussed with counsel. The judgment does not determine the final outcome of the judicial review.