The High Court has refused an application to quash a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that affirmed a recommendation against granting refugee status to a woman from Cameroon.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the process by which the Tribunal reached its credibility conclusion was legally sound and was not affected by a material error of law. He said the court’s role in judicial review was not to reassess the applicant’s credibility or substitute its own view for that of the decision-maker. The court therefore refused certiorari, the order sought to quash the decision.
The applicant said she had fled Cameroon after being taken to a chief’s house at her father’s funeral in October 2008 and told she had to become the chief’s wife. She said she refused, was held without food or water, and escaped from a hospital where she was being guarded. She also said local gendarmes told her they could not protect her because they were under the chief’s control.
The Tribunal had identified concerns about her account, including how she escaped from the hospital, her ability to walk a long distance after going without food and water, her approach to the gendarmerie, and the details of her travel to Ireland. It also considered whether she could relocate within Cameroon. The High Court said there was no necessity to consider internal relocation after upholding the legal soundness of the credibility process.
The applicant’s counsel argued that some credibility findings were based on perceived or “gut” feelings, and challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of the police evidence and the applicant’s account of her religious objection to the marriage. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the findings were reasonable and that internal relocation did not need to be considered given the credibility conclusions.
Justice Eagar criticised the Tribunal member’s comment questioning the strength of the applicant’s Catholic convictions because she had two children out of wedlock. He called it “gratuitously insulting”, but said it did not invalidate the decision and was unnecessary. The judgment records the criticism while leaving the Tribunal’s decision in place.