The High Court has refused an Egyptian applicant’s judicial review challenge to a decision affirming his transfer to the United Kingdom to have his international protection application examined there. The court also refused his requests for orders concerning a separate application for discretionary relief under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 21 December 2020, concerned a decision by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). The Tribunal had affirmed the International Protection Office’s decision that the UK was responsible for examining the applicant’s protection claim. The UK had accepted responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation after records showed the applicant had applied for protection there in 2016.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal had acted irrationally or unfairly by relying on the absence of a medical report about the effects of transfer. The material before the Tribunal included a GP referral and a Spirasi attendance letter describing psychological symptoms and therapy appointments. The High Court found the Tribunal had been entitled to say the applicant had ample opportunity to provide further medical material. It noted that, after an adjournment and a further request for documents in February 2020, no additional material was submitted. The court found the challenge on this point was not made out.
The applicant also challenged the Tribunal’s assessment of the risks associated with transfer, including his mental health and the possibility of detention in the UK. The High Court held that the Tribunal’s findings on the evidence were open to it and had not been shown to be irrational or unreasonable. It likewise rejected the argument that comments by the Tribunal about Article 17 invalidated its transfer decision or should be removed. The court said those comments had no legal effect on any future Article 17 decision by the Minister for Justice.
The applicant sought an order requiring the Minister to decide an Article 17 application. The court found he had not made a formal application to the Minister; asking the Tribunal to exercise discretion did not amount to an application to the Minister. It also refused requests requiring the State to establish an Article 17 application system or an appeal remedy against refusal of that discretion. The court said neither EU nor domestic law required such a system and noted judicial review was available to challenge an adverse Article 17 decision.
The court refused all relief sought and ordered the respondents’ costs against the applicant, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. It did not address an issue raised in the pleadings about the applicant’s identity.