The High Court has refused a Sierra Leonean woman’s application for judicial review of a decision that upheld a negative recommendation on her application for refugee status.
Mr Justice Cooke delivered judgment on 29 March 2011. The challenge concerned a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision of 13 February 2008. The court had granted leave to bring the judicial review in June 2010 on three grounds. It found none of them had been made out and refused the application.
The applicant said she had worked in Sierra Leone as an educator and campaigner against female genital mutilation (FGM). She alleged that women associated with the Sowei initiation societies had threatened and attacked her, including abducting and mistreating her in July 2006. She said she feared further harm if returned. The judgment also records that she had previously undergone FGM, which a medical report confirmed.
The applicant challenged the tribunal’s treatment of her claim, arguing that it had mischaracterised her fear as being primarily about a second FGM procedure rather than threats arising from her campaigning. The court found the tribunal had considered both the alleged initiation threat and the asserted risk to her as an anti-FGM activist. It said the tribunal was entitled to examine possible bases for a refugee claim disclosed by the evidence, whether or not the applicant had framed them in those terms.
She also argued that the tribunal had irrationally rejected her account of abduction and the supporting letters attributed to the Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CDHR). The court pointed to unanswered questions about how the letters were produced and what they said about her disappearance and alleged treatment. It held that the tribunal had a basis to disbelieve the abduction account and, on that basis, to give the letters no corroborative weight.
The third ground concerned whether Sierra Leone’s police would protect an anti-FGM campaigner. The court said the alleged threat at issue was harassment or violence linked to her campaigning, rather than a proposed FGM procedure. It found the tribunal could rely on country information indicating that police could offer assistance to people seeking protection, and could conclude that the applicant had not shown a serious possibility or real chance of future persecution.
The ruling refused the judicial review. It did not grant refugee status or make a new asylum decision; it rejected the three grounds challenging the tribunal’s decision.