The High Court has quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an asylum appeal by C.N. (Kenya), finding that a central credibility assessment was unreasonable. The case was remitted to another tribunal member for consideration; the court did not itself determine the asylum claim.
C.N. sought judicial review of the tribunal’s decision of 14 May 2010, which had confirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s refusal of refugee status. She alleged that Mungiki members forced her to join the group, threatened to subject her to female genital mutilation, raped her and threatened her family. She also said police protection was unavailable. These were her claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The judgment recounts that C.N. said she fled Kenya in April 2009 after an alleged attack and travelled through the United Kingdom to Ireland. The tribunal had questioned her credibility on three matters: her onward travel and failure to seek asylum in the UK; whether a violent group would have stopped an attempted forced circumcision after she pleaded with them; and whether a pastor would have paid a substantial sum towards her travel.
The High Court considered the travel issue peripheral to the core of the claim. It focused on the tribunal’s reasoning about the alleged attempted circumcision. Mr Justice Eagar said it was unreasonable to find the account incredible on the basis that the men had not carried out the procedure. He noted that forcible genital circumcision is not generally carried out by men and said the tribunal had not explained why it considered the account incredible.
The judgment also criticised the tribunal’s treatment of country-of-origin information concerning the Mungiki and police protection in Kenya, saying the information appeared to have been considered selectively. The court did not make a fresh finding on whether C.N. faced persecution or whether adequate state protection was available.
The court granted certiorari quashing the tribunal’s decision and remitted the matter for consideration by a different tribunal member. The requested determination of the asylum appeal afresh was not separately ordered in those terms; the operative order was to quash and remit.