The High Court has refused an Ivory Coast national’s application to quash a negative asylum recommendation over the failure to provide an Apollo-language interpreter at his interviews.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as K. E. A., sought certiorari to quash the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation of 12 September 2006 that he should not be declared a refugee. He also sought an order directing that his claim be readmitted to the asylum process. Leave to bring the proceedings was granted by consent in June 2008. The judgment does not determine the underlying asylum claim.
The applicant said Apollo was his first language and that he could not properly express himself in French. The Refugee Legal Service asked the Commissioner to provide an Apollo interpreter, but the Commissioner said one could not be sourced in Ireland or the UK. French interpreters were used at two interviews in July and September 2006. The judgment records that the applicant initially objected but then answered questions in French, sometimes in detail. He had also left much of his asylum questionnaire blank and did not complete it when asked to do so.
The Commissioner’s officer concluded that the applicant’s account lacked coherence and consistency and recommended against refugee status. The officer considered the applicant able to communicate effectively in French and suggested he had deliberately understated his proficiency. Those were the officer’s assessments, not findings on the underlying asylum claim.
Justice Hedigan held that the interview record did not show the applicant was unable to present his case: he gave involved answers, sought clarification of parts of the notes read back to him, and did not tell the interviewer he could not understand or ask for questions to be repeated. There was also no evidence that the interpreter had reported difficulty communicating with him.
The court said the complaints were not suitable for judicial review and that the applicant should pursue his appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It also addressed the interpreter obligation under section 11(2) of the Refugee Act 1996. The court said there is no absolute entitlement to an interpreter in an applicant’s first or preferred language; the relevant question is whether the applicant has sufficient proficiency in the interpreter’s language, considering the ability to follow the interview and whether proceeding would cause disadvantage. The judge held that the ORAC interviewer was the appropriate person to assess proficiency in these circumstances.
The court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not state the outcome of the separate appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.