The High Court extended the time for an asylum applicant to bring a judicial review challenge but refused leave to proceed, finding no substantial grounds to argue that the relevant decisions should be quashed.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Brian McGovern on 24 January 2008, concerned a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision dated 26 January 2006 refusing the applicant refugee status and affirming a recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The applicant had sought leave to challenge those decisions and to prevent a proposed deportation order. Her child’s separate claim was withdrawn at the start of the proceedings.
The application was outside the statutory 14-day period. The applicant said she had expected the Refugee Legal Service to challenge the refusal and stayed in contact with it while it considered the case. On 6 March 2006 she was told it would not bring proceedings, and she then instructed her current solicitor. The judge accepted that she had intended to appeal and that the delay was largely outside her control while the service dealt with the matter. He found good and sufficient reason to extend time.
That extension did not determine the challenge. The court explained that judicial review was not an appeal on the facts: its role was to consider whether the decisions were legally valid and reached in accordance with fair procedures. The applicant had to show substantial grounds for contending that the decisions were invalid or should be quashed.
The applicant’s account was that her partner’s family threatened her because of religious and tribal differences and because she had not been circumcised. She said she moved between places in Ghana to avoid problems. The Tribunal found she had relocated internally and had support from friends and family for almost eight years, and concluded she did not need international protection. The High Court held that the Tribunal was entitled to reach that conclusion on her own evidence, including that she suffered no physical harm in those places. The judge said that finding alone defeated the claim for refugee status.
The judgment also addressed concerns about the Tribunal’s treatment of police protection and female genital mutilation. The judge considered there might be an arguable question about the applicant’s reason for not seeking police protection, but found it immaterial in light of the internal-relocation finding. He likewise found that any error about the enforcement of Ghana’s ban on female genital mutilation was immaterial because the applicant’s claim was not based on fear of undergoing the procedure.
The court refused leave to apply for judicial review. It did not grant the requested orders quashing the decisions, directing a new appeal hearing, or prohibiting deportation proceedings.