The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision that upheld the rejection of an asylum claim by M.M.S. (Sri Lanka), directing that his appeal be determined again by a different Tribunal member.
Mr Justice Eagar made the order after a telescoped judicial review hearing. He found that the court had not been given enough information about the evidence at the Tribunal hearing to assess whether the decision-making process was lawful. The Tribunal’s decision contained only a summary of what it considered relevant oral evidence, and the hearing evidence itself was not exhibited.
The judicial review challenged the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation that M.M.S. should not be declared a refugee. The Tribunal had rejected his account as not credible, including his claims that he faced persecution from PLOTE and had been detained and interrogated after returning to Sri Lanka.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to address country of origin information, his medical and psychological reports, and the risk he might face if returned. The respondents maintained that the decision rested on credibility findings and that the Tribunal had explained why it gave little weight to the medical report.
Justice Eagar found that the Tribunal had not engaged with country information relevant to its assessment of the applicant’s explanation for returning to Sri Lanka and his account of escape from detention. He referred to reports describing arrests, detention and abuse of Tamils suspected of links to the LTTE, and evidence that detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch had escaped by paying bribes. The judge said protection decision-makers were required under regulation 5 of the 2006 Regulations to take account of relevant facts about the country of origin.
The judge also found that the Tribunal had not commented on a psychologist’s report describing ongoing symptoms, including intrusive thoughts, sleep disturbance and nightmares. He said the psychological report and Dr Leonard’s report provided corroborative evidence, and that the Tribunal had unlawfully failed to give weight to Dr Leonard’s report.
The court did not decide whether M.M.S. was entitled to refugee status or determine the truth of his account. It granted leave and quashed the Tribunal decision, directing a different Tribunal member to determine the appeal.