The High Court has refused the respondents’ application for a certificate to appeal a ruling in a refugee judicial review case, finding that neither proposed ground raised a point of law of exceptional public importance.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar gave the decision on 21 May 2015. The application followed an earlier High Court judgment, delivered on 11 February 2015, which quashed a 29 November 2010 decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and remitted the applicant’s appeal for a fresh, or de novo, consideration by a different tribunal member.
The respondents sought a certificate under section 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. They proposed two questions for appeal: the effect of questioning or comments by officers of the Refugee Applications Commissioner during an interview or tribunal hearing; and how the tribunal should treat documents said to originate from a non-state paramilitary or terrorist organisation.
On the first issue, the respondents submitted that the Commissioner’s questioning was not inappropriate or hostile and that the tribunal could not influence the section 11 interview. They also disputed the earlier judgment’s reference to an alleged “canteen culture”. Justice Eagar accepted the respondents’ view that there was no such culture, but said a risk could arise where applicants appear before the tribunal only occasionally while authorised and presenting officers appear there regularly. He concluded that this did not establish a point of exceptional public importance or a novel issue warranting a certificate.
The judge said a judicial review court has a duty to supervise decision-making and that an applicant who has not received fair procedures may be entitled to judicial review remedies.
On the documents issue, the respondents argued that the documents, said to be from the Taliban, could not be authenticated and had limited value even if taken at face value. The judgment records that the Commissioner’s section 13 report said their validity could neither be verified nor refuted. Justice Eagar noted that the tribunal’s analysis had not mentioned the documents and refused certification on this ground too.
The court therefore refused the certificate on both proposed grounds. The order concerned permission to take an appeal; it did not alter the earlier order quashing the tribunal decision and remitting the appeal for fresh consideration.