By Eoin Marsh
The High Court has quashed a decision refusing international protection to a Georgian woman after finding that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal did not properly assess whether state protection against domestic violence would be effective in her case.
Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell ordered that M.G.'s appeal be reconsidered by a differently constituted tribunal. The ruling does not grant her refugee status or subsidiary protection; it requires a fresh decision on her appeal.
The woman arrived in Ireland in March 2022 and sought protection on the basis of violence and threats from her former partner. The International Protection Office and Tribunal broadly accepted her account, including that she had suffered persecution, had a well-founded fear of further persecution and fell within a particular social group as a victim of domestic violence.
Her claim was nevertheless refused because the authorities considered that effective state protection would be available if she returned to Georgia.
The Tribunal relied on country information showing legal and institutional improvements in Georgia's response to domestic and gender-based violence. However, the same material recorded continuing problems, including inadequate police responses, ineffective enforcement of rape laws, shortcomings in preventing femicide and criticism that existing law and practice failed to provide effective solutions to sexual violence.
O'Donnell J said the Tribunal was entitled to assess that evidence and the High Court could not simply substitute its own view. The difficulty was that the conclusion of effective protection did not rationally follow from the material before the Tribunal.
The judge found that the Tribunal had effectively equated evidence of improvement with evidence that protection had reached the required legal standard of effectiveness. He said the question was not simply whether Georgia was taking steps to improve its response, but whether an effective and non-temporary system of protection existed for someone in the applicant's circumstances.
Other challenges concerning the adequacy of reasons, an alleged factual error and internal inconsistency were rejected. The judge's provisional view was that the applicant should receive her legal costs, with final orders listed for 19 March 2026.