The High Court refused a Ukrainian family’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision, declining to extend the time limit for bringing the case. Mr Justice Gilligan ruled on 18 March 2005 that the applicants had not shown good and sufficient reason for the delay or substantial grounds for quashing the tribunal decision.
The first applicant’s refugee appeal had been dismissed by the tribunal on 26 September 2002. The tribunal found that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and considered his account unsatisfactory in credibility and substance. The Minister later made a deportation order in respect of him, notified by letter dated 30 October 2003. The judicial review proceedings were instituted on 1 December 2003, about 13 months after the 14-day period for challenging the tribunal decision.
The applicants argued that the tribunal member had relied on research about the first applicant’s political party, UNA-UNSO, after the hearing without identifying its sources. They said this undermined fair procedures, particularly because the applicant had denied allegations that the party was anti-Semitic. They also argued that the statutory deadline allowed the court discretion to extend time and that the first applicant had not been advised about judicial review by his former legal representatives.
The respondents submitted that the applicant had legal advice throughout the period and that the material concerning the party was already contained in documentation before the tribunal. They argued that a change of lawyer or a different view of the decision did not justify a 13-month delay.
The judge was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tribunal member’s research had been carried out after the hearing or that the member considered documents beyond those before him. He added that even if there had been a failure to identify information sources, it would not have materially affected the outcome. He considered the question of the party’s anti-Semitic views a minor part of the tribunal’s reasoning, which also included other findings about the applicant’s account and the circumstances of his alleged persecution.
The court held that the statutory time limit was not absolute and that it had discretion to extend it. However, the judge found no clear oversight or error by the applicant’s former lawyers, no good and sufficient reason to extend time, and no substantial grounds to quash the tribunal decision. He refused leave to apply for judicial review, declined to extend time and refused the relief sought. The ruling addressed permission to bring a judicial review challenge; it was not a fresh determination of the refugee claim.