The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing refugee status to three applicants, finding that the decision did not show whether relevant evidence about the first applicant’s account had been considered. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration by a different member.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 27 January 2015, followed a telescoped judicial review hearing. The applicants were a woman and two minors, whose published names were anonymised in the judgment. They had claimed refugee status on religious grounds, based on alleged persecution in Niger.
The first applicant said that rebels came to her home on 2 October 2007, causing boiling water to spill on her infant son. She said she fled with him and hid in the bush. The Tribunal accepted that she was Christian and from Niger, but rejected the applications. Its decision found that her fear lacked an objective basis and questioned her credibility, including over why she had not asked a pastor to look for her other children.
The High Court rejected the applicants’ claims of bias and unfairness in how the Tribunal handled the allegation of attempted rape and beating. It also found no material error in the Tribunal’s account of the rebel groups, and rejected a separate challenge to its consideration of country of origin information. The court said the material before it did not establish that Christians were the target of the cited attacks.
However, the court found that the Tribunal decision did not make clear whether the first applicant’s evidence that her house was destroyed and that others had also fled was weighed when assessing her account and fear of return. The hearing note recording that evidence had not been challenged by the respondents. The court considered those matters central to assessing the claimed attack and found their omission materially affected the conclusion that the applicant’s fear was unreasonable.
The court also held that the Tribunal had not clearly stated whether it believed the core account that rebels came to the applicant’s home. Without a clear finding on that factual account, the court said, the assessment of whether the fear was unreasonable and lacked an objective basis could not safely stand.
The court formally granted leave on those grounds and, because the judicial review hearing had been telescoped, quashed the Tribunal decision and ordered the matter remitted to a different Tribunal member. It did not decide whether the applicants qualified for refugee status.