The Supreme Court has affirmed a High Court judgment refusing judicial review in a case brought by a Nigerian mother and her three children over the rejection of their refugee and subsidiary protection claims.
The appeal concerned whether the family should have been granted leave to challenge the Minister’s refusal of subsidiary protection on three grounds: that a full appeal on law and merits was required; that the mother should have received an oral interview before the Minister’s decision; and that the High Court should have awaited a ruling on the relevant legislation from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The family had been granted leave to seek judicial review on a separate, limited ground: that the deportation orders were invalid because the Minister had not personally considered whether deportation would breach non-refoulement obligations. The High Court later refused the judicial review application. The Supreme Court affirmed the earlier High Court judgment in this appeal.
The Court said judicial review could provide an effective remedy through thorough scrutiny of a decision’s reasoning, even though the High Court could not substitute its own findings or grant protection status. It found no fact in the decisions affecting the applicants that was so unreasonable or disproportionate to the evidence as to require the decisions to be quashed.
The mother’s account of violence in Nigeria had been rejected on credibility grounds by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal after an oral hearing. The Supreme Court noted that the family had provided no personal documents supporting the account and had repeated it, with additional general material about the Nigerian police, in their submissions to the Minister. The Court did not make a fresh finding on the underlying allegations; it considered whether the decisions and procedures could be challenged on the grounds advanced.
On the interview issue, the Court applied the Court of Justice ruling that an interview is not generally required in a separate subsidiary protection procedure, but may be necessary where specific circumstances mean the application cannot be assessed fully on the available material. It found no such circumstances in this case. The applicants had already taken part in oral procedures concerning their refugee claim, and no further interview was requested in response to the Minister’s invitation for submissions before deportation orders were made.
The Court also recorded that the applicants had been repatriated to Nigeria in December 2011 and that their current circumstances were unknown. It nevertheless proceeded with the appeal. The result was to affirm the High Court judgment; the Court did not grant protection or order a new hearing.