The High Court has ordered reconsideration of an international protection decision after finding that errors in the assessment of an applicant’s identity documents affected the finding that she was South African rather than Zimbabwean.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the applicant’s initial questionnaire identified her as a South African citizen, born there. After obtaining legal advice, she said she was from Zimbabwe and had misunderstood the questionnaire. The court noted that the questionnaire clearly asked about her country of birth, and that her initial account and later explanations contained significant inconsistencies.
The applicant produced a Zimbabwean birth certificate and an expired Zimbabwean passport, which the judgment described as apparently authentic. A marriage certificate also supported her explanation that the surname in the passport was her married name. The IPO had the documents before it, but its report incorrectly stated that the Zimbabwean documents used a different surname from the one the applicant later claimed. The court said the report did not accurately assess the documents alongside the chronology and the applicant’s explanations.
The IPO had concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant was South African. That nationality finding meant her claim was considered through an accelerated process because South Africa was treated as a safe country of origin. The High Court said the finding was material: nationality affected the substance and process of the claim, and the applicant had not yet had her case considered as a Zimbabwean national.
The judge did not decide the applicant’s nationality or credibility. She said a future decision maker could again find that the applicant lacked credibility or was South African, but would need to assess the documents accurately and weigh the evidence fairly. The court also declined to substitute its own view on the facts.
The case was to be remitted for reconsideration. The judgment records that the court’s provisional view was that costs should be awarded to the applicant, with the matter listed for 9 July to hear the parties on the orders required. It does not record the final costs order.