The Court of Appeal has granted three members of a family leave to seek judicial review of a decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, allowing them to challenge its conclusion that their claims had no link to a Refugee Convention ground because of their family membership.
The ruling does not decide whether the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful or whether the applicants qualify for international protection. It permits a challenge to proceed on that issue.
The family’s protection claims were based on a fear that they would face persecution in Georgia from people acting for or connected to a person whom the first appellant had helped expose to prosecution and imprisonment. The International Protection Office rejected the factual basis of the claims. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted that basis but rejected the claims on other grounds in a decision issued on 7 September 2023.
The family sought judicial review in the High Court. In October 2023, the High Court refused leave on several grounds, including a challenge to the Tribunal’s finding that there was no Refugee Convention link. It granted leave on other grounds. The High Court later certified two questions for appeal.
The Court of Appeal answered “yes” to both. It agreed that the High Court had been right to reject an argument that the Tribunal breached fair procedures by considering the Convention link on appeal when the IPO had not addressed it. The court said fair procedures did not require every issue to be decided at first instance if another issue had been decisive, provided fair procedures were followed at both hearings.
It also agreed that the High Court judge was entitled to assess the material presented by the applicants and was not required to conduct legal research on their behalf. The court noted that a relevant High Court decision had not been brought to the judge’s attention at the leave hearing.
However, after considering that earlier decision, the Court of Appeal concluded there were substantial grounds for the second, third and fourth appellants to challenge the Tribunal’s finding on the family-membership issue. It granted them leave to seek an order quashing that part of the Tribunal’s decision. The first appellant was excluded from this specific challenge.
The court’s provisional view was that there should be no order as to costs for the appeal. It said the issue on which leave was granted arose because the appellants had not drawn the relevant authority to the High Court judge’s attention. The appellants could make written submissions on costs within 14 days of the judgment.