The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming a recommendation that he not be declared a refugee. Mr Justice Hedigan ruled on 30 October 2008 that, despite an error concerning country of origin evidence, the applicant had not shown substantial grounds to quash the decision.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as P. I. E., is a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He said government forces detained and beat him and members of his family in 2001 and 2002 while seeking his brother, who had taken part in a protest. He later joined the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo and said he was selected for its secret service, trained and assigned to gather information. He alleged that he was later sent on missions to commit crimes, including murder.
He said that after writing a resignation letter in March 2004, he feared for his safety. That night, his mother, brother, fiancée and son were arrested, according to his account. He travelled to England in April 2004. After an unsuccessful asylum application there, which he said his lawyer failed to appeal in time, he applied for asylum in Ireland in September 2005 under an assumed name. He did not disclose his earlier UK application.
The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected his claim, citing credibility concerns and finding no Convention nexus. The tribunal dismissed his appeal in August 2006, relying on inconsistencies including his account of his siblings, his understanding of secret service membership, why he left the DRC, and the consequences of his resignation for his family.
The applicant challenged the tribunal’s treatment of the burden of proof, credibility and country information. The court rejected the first two grounds. It found the tribunal had correctly described the burden of proof and that inconsistencies, together with the undisclosed UK application, provided ample basis for its credibility findings.
However, the judge found the tribunal was wrong to say there was no objective evidence supporting the applicant’s fear. Country reports and other material before the tribunal supported his account of civil strife in the DRC. The court nevertheless concluded that the error did not make the decision irrational or unreasonable: given the doubts about the applicant’s personal credibility, the tribunal could disbelieve the claimed impact on him even if the broader country evidence supported his account of conditions.
The proceedings were brought outside the statutory 14-day period. The judge accepted that the applicant’s solicitor acted with due expedition after being instructed and found good and sufficient reason to extend time. The court then refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not quash the tribunal’s decision or determine the asylum claim afresh.