The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister’s appeal against a High Court ruling that had quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting A. O.’s asylum claim.
The appeal addressed whether decision-makers must investigate the authenticity of documents submitted by an international protection applicant when credibility is disputed. The court answered that there is no general obligation to conduct independent checks. It said an inquiry may be required in special circumstances, including cases where documents are critical to a claim and the consequences for the applicant could be grave.
The Tribunal had found A. O.’s account lacked credibility and that documents said to come from the African Refugee Foundation (AREF) were unlikely to be authentic. It cited discrepancies in a letter, including errors in the spelling of “PricewaterhouseCoopers” and “UNHCR”, as well as problems with the website and email details. The letter also differed from A. O.’s account about how long she stayed at the foundation and when she left her uncle’s home.
The High Court had concluded that the Tribunal should have taken steps to check the documents, such as contacting the foundation, and quashed its decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that the Tribunal had reviewed the documents and given reasons for its assessment. The court also concluded that the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings about A. O.’s narrative could not be said to be unreasonable in law.
The court distinguished the case from Singh v. Belgium, where the European Court of Human Rights found that documents central to a protection claim had been rejected without checking their authenticity. In A. O.’s case, the Tribunal had identified specific discrepancies after reviewing the material. The applicant or her legal advisers could also have made inquiries to verify the documents, the court said.
The judgment concerned the lawfulness of the Tribunal’s credibility assessment and the duty to investigate documents; it did not itself determine the underlying asylum claim. The court said it was unnecessary to express a view on the second certified question, which concerned confidentiality under the Refugee Act 1996.