The High Court has refused an asylum applicant’s request to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision, finding the sole ground argued was untenable in light of a Court of Justice ruling on the Irish system for reviewing asylum decisions.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.V.P. (Sierra Leone), challenged the tribunal’s decision affirming a negative recommendation on the asylum application. The tribunal decision was dated 4 October 2011. The judicial review proceedings began later that month.
The applicant argued that the tribunal did not provide an effective remedy because its members were appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality, served part-time for three years and were paid on a case-by-case basis. The applicant said those arrangements breached principles concerning judicial independence and had not been addressed by the Court of Justice in an earlier case.
The respondents argued that the Court of Justice had comprehensively dealt with the issues, pointing to decisions by the High Court judge who had referred questions to that court, both before and after its ruling.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar reviewed the Court of Justice’s ruling on the Irish asylum procedure. That ruling said the tribunal’s statutory independence, members’ qualifications and fixed terms did not call its independence into question. It also considered the availability of challenges in the High Court and appeals to a higher court. The Court of Justice concluded that the Irish system respected the right to an effective remedy.
Justice Eagar said the applicant’s ground was not tenable in light of that ruling and a subsequent decision by Cooke J. applying it, reported as [2011] IEHC 33. He refused the application for certiorari. The judgment does not otherwise determine the merits of the underlying asylum application.