The High Court has quashed refugee-status recommendations against a Nigerian man and his wife after finding that they were not given a fair chance to answer country-of-origin information used to question their credibility.
Mr Justice Clarke ruled on 23 June 2005 that the Refugee Applications Commissioner had breached natural justice in investigating the couple’s claims. The decision also applied to their daughter, whose claim had been treated as part of her mother’s application.
The man said he fled Nigeria because his family sought to force him into religious and ritual practices he rejected, and threatened him and his family. His wife said she feared her husband’s family would kill her and that their daughter would be subjected to female genital mutilation.
The Commissioner recommended that neither adult be declared a refugee. The reports relied in material part on credibility findings, including alleged inconsistencies between the applicants’ accounts and country-of-origin information. That information had not been put to the applicants, who therefore had no reasonable opportunity to explain how it related to their circumstances.
The reports also included a finding under section 13(6)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996: that each application showed “either no basis or a minimal basis” for claiming refugee status. Under the statutory procedure described in the judgment, that finding meant any appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal would be decided without an oral hearing. The judge said the applicants would not otherwise have an opportunity for an oral appeal at which to address the credibility concerns.
The court held that where such a finding is materially influenced by an adverse credibility assessment based on information unavailable to the applicant, fair procedures require the Commissioner to give the applicant a reasonable chance to address that information before making the recommendation. The judge said the Act did not prevent the Commissioner from reconvening an interview to provide that opportunity. In these cases, no such opportunity had been given.
The court quashed the Commissioner’s decisions and said the matters would return for proper consideration and investigation. It did not decide the merits of the applicants’ refugee claims, the constitutional challenge, or the alternative grounds concerning the factual assessment.
The judge found no separate independent ground for the daughter beyond her mother’s claim, while stressing that a child’s application must receive proper consideration. He said reports or tribunal decisions involving a minor should make clear how conclusions about that child were reached. The judgment did not determine whether the family would ultimately be granted refugee status.