The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to an anonymised Sierra Leonean applicant, finding that the appeals tribunal failed to engage with country reports suggesting ordinary members of an opposition party had faced violence and other harm.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ordered the case remitted to a new Tribunal for fresh determination. The court did not decide whether the applicant qualifies for protection or direct that protection be granted.
The applicant’s claim was that his political activity with the All People’s Congress (APC) put him at risk if returned to Sierra Leone. The Tribunal accepted that he was an ordinary APC member and had been recruited to accompany the former first lady to the UK. It rejected other parts of his account, including his claimed leadership roles and allegations that his home had been vandalised and that police accused him of inciting violence.
The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of a 2019 Satellite Newspaper article which alleged he was wanted by police. The Tribunal gave the article no weight, citing the unusual appearance of the physical copy, concerns about its authenticity, the time between the reported events and publication, and its broader adverse credibility findings.
The High Court rejected that challenge. It held that the Tribunal had given adequate reasons for its decision and that its conclusion was open to it.
The court reached a different conclusion on the country-of-origin information (COI). The Tribunal had stated that the applicant’s account did not generally run counter to available COI. But when assessing the risk of serious harm, it relied on an extract from a US Department of State report and found nothing to suggest the applicant would be targeted simply because of his general profile or APC membership.
The applicant had also submitted reports describing violence against APC supporters and members, including attacks on homes and properties and arrests during the 2018 election period. The respondents argued that the material mainly concerned politicians or activists. The judge said he could not safely reach that conclusion from the material before the Tribunal.
The court found that the Tribunal had to analyse the material indicating risks to ordinary APC members and explain why it rejected that information or preferred other reports. Its failure to do so meant the decision had to be quashed and the case reconsidered.