The High Court has refused G.I.’s applications for a certificate to appeal and for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, following its earlier refusal of judicial review relief. It also awarded costs to the respondents.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2015, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys considered the applications as consequential matters after his substantive decision in G.I. v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2015] IEHC 682.
G.I.’s counsel argued that the EU Qualification Directive required the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to discuss country-of-origin information in narrative form in every case, and sought a reference to the EU court on that issue. The respondents opposed the request and sought costs.
The judge said a court could decline to refer an EU law question where it was irrelevant to the outcome because the case could be decided on other grounds. In the substantive decision, he had found that G.I. had been held to lack credibility to such an extent that country-of-origin information would not have changed the result. He said that even if the Tribunal had erred by not discussing that material, the error would have been harmless. The court therefore refused the reference.
On the appeal application, G.I.’s counsel submitted that the judgment raised a point of law of exceptional public importance: whether the Directive required narrative consideration of country-of-origin information in all cases. The judge said a point of law should normally be potentially decisive, meaning that a different answer could materially affect the order. He concluded that, in this case, further discussion of the country information would not have changed the conclusion on credibility, and refused a certificate enabling an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The court had previously refused judicial review relief. This judgment addressed the subsequent requests for an EU court reference and an appeal certificate; it did not reopen or alter the earlier substantive decision. The judge awarded costs to the respondents, noting that no particular basis had been advanced for departing from the usual approach that costs follow the event.