The High Court has quashed a decision refusing an applicant’s international protection appeal after finding that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal failed to assess his later claims about political activity and a loan.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2022, Ms Justice Bolger ruled that the Tribunal had not complied with its duty under section 28 of the International Protection Act 2015 to assess the relevant elements of the application. She remitted the matter for a fresh determination in accordance with the law.
The applicant, identified as S., is a Georgian national. He initially claimed he feared harm because of his sexuality and a loan. At his appeal hearing on 6 October 2020, he admitted that the sexuality claim was false. He said he had acted on advice from another Georgian man and wanted to tell the truth.
At the hearing, he advanced a different account: that he supported the UNM party, had filmed a politician in 2014 and was subsequently beaten, bullied and harassed by men from his local area until he left Georgia in 2019. He also repeated his claim that people who lent him money might target him.
The Tribunal’s December 2020 decision found that the major inconsistency between the accounts undermined his credibility and rejected the material facts as unestablished. The High Court observed that the Tribunal’s questions focused on the original false claim and the applicant’s explanation for it. Its decision contained no assessment of the later political activity claim or the repeated loan claim.
The respondents argued that the Tribunal had considered the case as a whole and was entitled to find the applicant lacked credibility. The court held that credibility was one factor to assess alongside the other elements of an application, including the applicant’s statements and personal circumstances. The Tribunal could take the earlier fabrication into account when weighing the later evidence, but it still had to assess those claims.
The court did not decide whether the later claims were true or whether the applicant qualified for protection. It found that the Tribunal’s process did not meet the statutory requirements and quashed its decision.
On costs, the judge gave an indicative view that the applicant should receive his costs against the respondents. The matter was listed for mention on 29 July 2022 for further submissions on costs and the final orders.