The High Court has quashed part of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision in an asylum case, finding that it did not clearly explain why the applicant’s credibility challenge was rejected. The appeal was remitted for further consideration, with the court recommending a supplemental decision by the same Tribunal member and no reopening of the hearing if that member remained available.
The applicant, a Nigerian national, challenged the Tribunal’s 29 August 2007 decision affirming a negative recommendation on her asylum application. She had claimed that her stepmother beat her and tried to force her into prostitution, and that she was threatened after running away. Those were allegations in her asylum claim, not findings made by the High Court.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner’s report had rejected her account as not credible. It cited, among other matters, her failure to seek police protection in Nigeria and the absence of medical documentation about alleged bruises. On appeal, the Tribunal’s decision discussed her failure to approach the police and concluded that police protection would have been available if she had sought it.
Justice Cooke said the Tribunal’s decision left unclear whether it had rejected the applicant’s account as lacking credibility or accepted the events she described but found that state protection was available. That uncertainty mattered because the Minister would later consider the asylum application and any subsequent subsidiary-protection or leave-to-remain matters. The court held that the first part of the judicial-review ground, concerning the clarity of the credibility conclusion, had been established.
The court rejected the second part of the challenge. It said the Tribunal had adequately explained why police protection would have been available: the alleged persecutor was a non-state actor, the alleged threats and acts were criminal offences under Nigerian law, and country-of-origin information supported the availability of police protection.
The court did not find a substantive error of law in the Tribunal member’s conclusion. It found an omission: the appeal decision did not give an express, reasoned ruling on Ground 4 of the applicant’s notice of appeal, which disputed the finding that she lacked credibility.
The High Court quashed the decision only to the extent of that omission and remitted the appeal to the Tribunal. It strongly recommended that, if available, the same Tribunal member make a supplemental decision stating clearly the basis and reasons for the credibility finding, without reopening the hearing. If that member was unavailable, the Tribunal chairperson could withdraw the 2007 decision and assign the matter for a full rehearing before a different member.