The High Court has refused an asylum applicant’s request to certify three questions for appeal to the Court of Appeal, concluding that the proposed points did not meet the required threshold of exceptional public importance and public interest.
The application concerned R.S.’s judicial review case against the Minister for Justice and Equality and other respondents. In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2017, Ms Justice Stewart considered whether to certify questions about country-of-origin information, medical reports concerning alleged torture, and a credibility provision in the Refugee Act 1996.
On country-of-origin information, the applicant asked whether a decision-maker must explain why one relevant source was preferred over other sources consistent with the applicant’s account, even where his personal credibility had been rejected. The court said that assessing such information and deciding what weight to give it was for the decision-maker. It referred to the more than 1,200 pages submitted to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, noting that the applicant had conceded some material was irrelevant and had supplied a shorter volume of pertinent material to the court. The judge was not satisfied that the issue warranted a certificate.
The second proposed question concerned SPIRASI medical reports prepared using the Istanbul Protocol, including whether a decision-maker could give a report little or no weight in light of other credibility findings. The court had previously found that the Tribunal Member acted within his remit in dealing with the report. Justice Stewart said the applicant had not identified an error in how the court reached its earlier decision and refused certification on this ground.
The final question concerned section 11B(b) of the Refugee Act and whether it applied only where an applicant claimed Ireland was the first safe country encountered after leaving the country of origin. The applicant argued that the law was uncertain and pointed to earlier High Court decisions. The respondents submitted that the provision was a mandatory consideration in assessing credibility.
The judge distinguished the earlier cases, saying the Tribunal Member in R.S.’s case had considered his explanation for not seeking asylum in Russia and found it unreasonable. The judgment referred to his 47-day stay there and the stated considerations, which included dislike of the weather and food. The court said the proposed issue was closely tied to the facts and would not justify a certificate. It also noted that the validity of the underlying decision had already been settled in the court’s July 2016 judgment.
The court refused the application for a certificate of appeal on all three questions. It did not revisit the underlying judicial review decision in this judgment.