The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to an Algerian applicant, ruling that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal had not clearly determined whether the applicant or his family were threatened by his uncle.
In a judgment delivered on 23 April 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty ordered the application to be reconsidered. She said the Tribunal had accepted that a family property dispute existed and that something was reported to police, who did nothing, but had not made clear findings about what threats were made, to whom, or what was reported.
The applicant said his uncle threatened to kill him over a family dispute concerning property, threatened his parents and physically beat his father. He also said police ignored his complaints because they “do not help the poor.” The Tribunal accepted that the uncle sought to frustrate a property sale and that the applicant reported the matter to police, but the judge said it was unclear what “the matter” meant. The decision did not establish whether the applicant’s uncle had threatened to kill him or whether his family had been threatened.
The applicant also alleged that his uncle sexually assaulted him when he was nine. He first raised the claim in an interview in June 2022, describing one incident on a stairway and later referring to it as rape. The Tribunal rejected the allegation. The judge said that finding was open to the Tribunal, but its stated reasons—lack of corroboration and omission from the initial questionnaire—provided weak support. She noted the difficulty of corroborating historic sexual assault claims and said the decision did not clearly address the lack of detail or the applicant’s description of the incident.
The court did not decide whether the alleged threats occurred or whether the applicant qualifies for international protection. Justice Gearty said that if the Tribunal accepts that death threats were made, it must consider section 28(6) of the International Protection Act 2015, which treats past persecution, serious harm or direct threats as a serious indication of future risk unless there are good reasons otherwise.
The applicant also argued that written submissions had not been considered. The court rejected that ground because the submissions were not produced to the court, and the account of their date changed at the hearing. The judgment said the refusal decision must be quashed and the application reconsidered. The judge indicated that the respondents should bear the costs, but invited written submissions on costs by 7 May.