The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision rejecting a Zimbabwean man’s asylum appeal, finding that its credibility assessment remained reasonable despite a potentially objectionable finding about a newspaper article.
In a judgment delivered on 4 October 2012, Ms Justice M. Clark said the man’s account of why he left Zimbabwe had shifted significantly between his initial questionnaire, interview and appeal. His wife and child were also applicants, but their claims depended on his appeal, so the challenge proceeded on the lawfulness of the decision on his claim.
The man said he had been targeted because of his political support for the opposition MDC. His account included alleged arrests, assaults and torture, and a claim that he was detained in 2003 after authorities seized his computer. He also said a 1998 newspaper article identifying him with opposition views had brought him to the authorities’ attention.
The Tribunal rejected his appeal on credibility grounds. It relied on discrepancies in his accounts, including when and how he obtained travel documents and the circumstances of his departure. The Tribunal also questioned his account of contact with academic Masipula Sithole after learning that Sithole had died in April 2003. The man said he had made a mistake about the dates and meant March rather than May.
The High Court said it was the Tribunal’s role to assess credibility and that judicial review was not an opportunity for the court to substitute its own assessment. It found that the Tribunal had considered the medical report describing injuries consistent with an assault and burning, but was entitled to decide that it did not outweigh the problems with the wider account. The court also said correspondence about the man’s former wife’s successful US asylum claim differed materially from his account and could not corroborate his core claim.
Justice Clark said she hesitated over the Tribunal’s finding that there was nothing to show the man was the “A.M.” named in the newspaper article. Even if that finding was wrong, she concluded, it did not make the remaining credibility findings irrational or unreasonable. The article’s connection to the man did not resolve the other inconsistencies or the Tribunal’s concerns about his claimed business and political activities.
The court held that substantial grounds for judicial review had not been established and refused leave. It did not grant asylum or determine a new protection claim. As a postscript, the judge noted that conditions in Zimbabwe had changed since the family’s 2003 application and said any future protection application should address those changed circumstances and the treatment of similarly situated returnees.