The High Court quashed the refusal of subsidiary protection to a family after finding that the decision-maker had not rationally analysed conflicting information about conditions in Pakistan. The court did not quash the family’s deportation orders.
In a judgment delivered on 21 May 2015, Mr Justice Robert Eagar said the applicants had established an entitlement to relief because the subsidiary protection decision was irrational when assessed against the country of origin information submitted to the Minister.
The applicants had sought judicial review of both the refusal of subsidiary protection and the deportation orders made in August 2012. They argued, among other things, that the Minister had overlooked relevant evidence about the risks they said they faced in Pakistan, including in Waziristan. The court’s judgment recounts their claims of threats connected to a jirga, the proposed forced marriage of a daughter, the kidnapping of a son and the first applicant’s arrests and detention. Those matters were claims advanced by the family, not findings made by the High Court.
The subsidiary protection refusal relied in part on credibility findings previously made by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The department’s decision-maker also considered reports on security and violence in Pakistan, including material describing attacks and deaths, alongside a report characterising the second half of 2011 as a period of comparative peace.
Justice Eagar held that the decision-maker cited country information but did not rationally analyse conflicts between the sources or explain why one view was preferred over another. He applied the principle that where country information conflicts, a decision-maker must engage with that conflict and justify the preference reached.
The judgment also discusses the first applicant’s serious heart condition and the department’s consideration of his medical circumstances in connection with deportation. However, the relief granted was limited: the court made an order of certiorari quashing the subsidiary protection decision. It did not grant the requested relief quashing the deportation orders. The judgment does not grant subsidiary protection or determine the applicants’ underlying claims.