The High Court has refused an application by the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to dismiss or strike out a child’s challenge to the refusal of refugee status. The court directed that the matter be listed for an early hearing in the new term.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 11 April 2014, concerned the respondents’ application to end the proceedings before the child’s application for leave to seek judicial review was heard. The child, identified as K.A., is suing through her father and next friend, M.I.
The challenge concerns a tribunal decision dated 9 September 2013. The child’s grounds allege, among other matters, that the tribunal wrongly relied on her possible citizenship in Ghana and Cameroon, failed to treat her best interests as a primary consideration, and did not adequately address her health and vulnerability. Those are allegations advanced in the judicial review papers; the High Court did not determine the underlying refugee status challenge in this ruling.
The judge said the statutory leave process under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 is the mechanism for deciding whether there are substantial grounds to challenge the tribunal decision. Dismissing the case under the court rules before that process would deprive the child of the opportunity to seek leave. The respondents’ arguments substantially overlapped with issues to be addressed at the leave stage, and saving time and expense was not enough to justify early dismissal.
The judgment recounted the family’s earlier asylum and immigration proceedings. It said the parents’ refugee claims had been rejected, and that the tribunal had concluded the child was entitled to Ghanaian citizenship and might be entitled to Cameroonian citizenship. The judge considered the child’s first ground misconceived and said the grounds concerning her best interests did not identify precisely what had been overlooked or how it affected the protection decision. He also noted that the parents had not sought the relevant citizenship documents.
Despite those criticisms, the judge was not satisfied that the proceedings should be dismissed under the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process. He said that power should be used sparingly and that care was required because the applicant is a minor. The ruling therefore leaves the leave application to proceed; it neither grants leave nor quashes the tribunal decision.