The High Court has quashed an International Protection Appeals Tribunal decision refusing an appeal by a Sierra Leonean man, finding that the tribunal did not properly weigh a medical report when assessing his account of alleged torture and his credibility.
The judicial review concerned the tribunal’s decision of 9 November 2021, which affirmed the International Protection Office recommendation that the applicant receive neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection. The applicant challenged how the tribunal considered a SPIRASI report describing physical injuries and psychological symptoms.
The applicant had claimed that supporters of a rival political party abducted and tortured him in February 2018, and that he was assaulted at a political demonstration later that year. Those were allegations in his protection claim, not findings by the High Court. The IPO had rejected his account as not credible, and the tribunal also refused his appeal after an oral hearing.
The SPIRASI doctor recorded swelling and restricted movement in the applicant’s ring fingers, an X-ray finding of ankylosis in the right ring finger, and forearm scars. The report assessed those findings as “consistent” with the account given, meaning they could have resulted from the described trauma but had other possible causes. It also described symptoms consistent with generalised anxiety disorder. The High Court accepted that the report’s evidential support was weak and that the tribunal, rather than the doctor, was responsible for deciding the protection claim.
However, the court found that the tribunal had first reached adverse credibility conclusions without weighing the report’s findings, then discounted it because it depended on the applicant’s account. The judge said that approach compartmentalised the evidence. The report independently recorded physical injuries, even though the explanation for their cause relied on the applicant’s account. The court held that the injuries and the report’s assessment should have been weighed with the other evidence when considering both the alleged abuse and credibility.
The judge said the other credibility findings were not so compelling that it was safe to conclude proper consideration of the report could not have affected the outcome. The court did not decide whether the applicant’s allegations were true or direct that he be granted protection.
The High Court ordered certiorari quashing the tribunal’s 9 November 2021 decision. It said it would hear the parties on the terms of remittal and other consequential matters; those matters were not determined in the judgment.