The High Court has ruled that a 26-year-old Georgian man was denied a fair international protection appeal because the Tribunal decided his case without hearing oral evidence from him.
J.R. applied for international protection in March 2023. He claimed that he had supported an opposition political party in Georgia, attended rallies supporting LGBT rights and been assaulted by security forces or police. He also alleged that police circulated a rumour that he was gay and threatened him and his family.
The International Protection Office rejected his application in August 2023 on credibility grounds. J.R. appealed and requested an oral hearing.
Before the appeal was decided, the Tribunal received a report from Dr Joan Elizabeth Giller. She diagnosed J.R. with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression and generalised anxiety disorder. She also considered his reported memory difficulties consistent with his psychological condition and described his symptoms as highly consistent with his account of trauma.
The Tribunal nevertheless refused an oral hearing in July 2024 and upheld the rejection of his protection claim. It identified inconsistencies concerning the number and dates of alleged assaults and rallies, as well as other aspects of his account.
Mr Justice Barr held that the medical evidence created an additional reason why an oral hearing was required. He found, on the balance of probabilities, that J.R. had been suffering from significant psychiatric conditions when completing his protection questionnaire and attending interviews. Those interviews also appeared to have taken place without a lawyer present.
The judge said it was unfair to decide the appeal solely on documentary evidence obtained when J.R. was very unwell and unrepresented. Because that procedural finding was enough to determine the judicial review, the court did not decide whether the Tribunal's substantive credibility findings were otherwise reasonable.
The court said it would quash the July 2024 decision and proposed sending the case back for a fresh oral appeal before a different Tribunal member. Final orders were to be settled after further submissions.