The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting the credibility of a Ukrainian family’s asylum claim and remitted the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration.
In a judgment delivered on 25 June 2013, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh found that the tribunal’s credibility findings were unlawful. He said the tribunal had relied on mistaken facts, conjecture and peripheral matters rather than examining the applicants’ full account and determining their core claim.
The first applicant, identified in the judgment as D. E., said he had served as a Ukrainian army platoon commander, including two tours with the international peacekeeping force in Kosovo. He alleged that he was persecuted after pursuing complaints that soldiers’ pay had been deducted to provide money to senior officers. The applicants’ asylum claims also included alleged assaults and threats in Ukraine. These were claims before the tribunal, not findings made by the High Court.
The tribunal rejected the first applicant’s general credibility for three reasons: the lack of documents supporting complaints he said he had made; its interpretation of a summons and the address where it was served; and questions about how his father obtained his military uniform after the applicant’s apartment was sealed.
The judge found the lack of a paper trail was not a sound basis for the finding in the circumstances described. The applicant said some complaints were oral and that he fled Ukraine fearing immediate harm, leaving his belongings behind. The tribunal had not addressed a regulation concerning claims unsupported by documents, the judge said, and had not taken account of country information about corruption in the military.
The court also found that the tribunal’s conclusions about the summons were unsupported by the evidence and involved speculation. The summons had been sent to the applicant’s father’s address, where the applicant was registered. The judge said the translated document did not establish that it concerned only an administrative matter, nor could its text show whether it related to alleged arms trading.
On the uniform, the judge said the tribunal had not put its question to the applicant, who should have had an opportunity to answer. The available evidence that he remained registered at his father’s address offered a plausible explanation for his father’s access to the uniform.
The judge also found that differences between the spouses’ accounts of a late-night visit were minor and understandable because they had different perspectives on the events. A concern about an employment booklet was peripheral to the claim. Neither issue, he said, could support a general rejection of credibility.
The court formally granted leave to seek judicial review, issued an order of certiorari quashing the decision, and sent the matter back to the tribunal for reconsideration. It did not determine the truth of the underlying persecution allegations or decide the asylum claim.