The High Court refused an applicant leave to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of her asylum claim, finding that the tribunal’s credibility assessment was independently supported despite an error in its decision.
In a judgment delivered on 20 September 2011, Mr Justice Hogan considered a judicial review challenge to the tribunal’s 9 December 2009 decision. The applicant, identified in the judgment as O. B., had said she was born in Moldova in 1973 and worked as a midwife. She alleged that after taking part in political demonstrations in Chisinau in 2001, she was arrested and raped in detention by police or their agents. She also described a later assault and a car collision that she believed had been arranged by the authorities.
The tribunal rejected her account on credibility grounds. Justice Hogan held that it was entitled to find that the alleged large demonstration on 29 November 2001 had not been established, noting the absence of contemporary media evidence. He also found that a medical report describing symptoms highly consistent with rape did not establish who had caused the trauma or that state agents were responsible. The tribunal had weighed the report against its earlier rejection of the claimed arrest and detention.
The judge also upheld the tribunal’s conclusions about the alleged staged traffic accident and the applicant’s knowledge of the area she said she came from. A party letter supporting her participation in demonstrations had not been considered by the tribunal. Justice Hogan said the absence of independent corroboration could explain why it was of little assistance, if authentic.
However, the judge held that the tribunal member erred in suggesting the applicant was fleeing criminal prosecution based on her account of speaking at demonstrations. He said the comments were passing remarks, not critical to the tribunal’s decision. The court therefore concluded they did not undermine the other credibility findings.
The court did not determine that the alleged events had or had not occurred. It found that the applicant had not established substantial grounds to justify granting leave to apply for judicial review under section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The application for leave was refused.