The High Court has refused W.T.’s application for judicial review seeking to quash a deportation order, finding that the Minister’s reasons for concluding that return to Liberia would not breach the prohibition on refoulement were reasonably clear from the decision as a whole.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barr on 5 December 2014, concerned a deportation order made on 3 February 2010 under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. W.T. argued that the Minister had not adequately explained the section 5 Refugee Act 1996 conclusion that repatriation would not put him at risk.
W.T. claimed to be Liberian and said he fled the country during the civil war in 2003. His account included an incident at a roadblock where, he said, rebels tried to make him fight and shot at him as he escaped. He said his parents had been killed and his sister had gone missing. The judgment records that his asylum application was refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal upheld that decision in 2004.
The Minister’s file memorandum set out W.T.’s account and reproduced country information on Liberia and Nigeria. Its conclusion said that repatriation to Liberia or Nigeria would not breach section 5, but did not spell out a specific rationale. W.T. submitted that the reasons were therefore insufficient. The Minister’s counsel argued that the rationale was apparent: W.T.’s stated fear related to wartime conditions, while the country information showed the war had ended and conditions had improved.
The judge rejected the Minister’s argument that W.T. was estopped from challenging the deportation order because he had also sought its revocation. The judicial review had been brought within the 14-day time limit and before the revocation request was decided, distinguishing the case from an earlier decision relied on by the Minister.
On the substantive challenge, the court considered W.T.’s stated basis for fearing return and the country information referred to in the Minister’s decision. The judge said W.T.’s case was that he had fled the bloodshed and general disorder of the war, and that he had not claimed he would face persecution from either side in a future conflict. The information before the Minister showed the war had ended and that conditions were generally safe for civilians. In that context, the judge found the reasoning sufficiently clear and the conclusion rational on the evidence then available.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not quash the deportation order.