The High Court quashed a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision refusing a Nigerian woman’s refugee claim after finding that an unexplained 10-month delay in issuing the decision raised concerns about fairness. The appeal must be reconsidered by a different Tribunal Member. The court did not decide the substance of the refugee claim or the other grounds raised in the judicial review.
The woman had sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s January 2009 decision affirming a negative recommendation by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. She alleged that her late husband’s family threatened and abused her after she refused to marry his brother. The judgment records that she said she feared being killed if returned to Nigeria and could not safely relocate there.
The Tribunal had rejected her account as not credible. Its reasons included that she had remained with her alleged persecutors despite her parents living in the same region, and that her account of selling land owned by her late husband was vague. It also considered that she could relocate within Nigeria. The High Court described the Tribunal’s decision as resting on credibility findings.
The asylum application was made on 24 August 2006, and the appeal hearing took place on 19 March 2008. The Tribunal decision followed on 27 January 2009, about 10 months later. The judgment said the decision stated that the evidence had been typed up at the hearing, but no other explanation for the delay was provided. The woman had not asked the Tribunal to issue its decision or sought a rehearing because of the delay. The court gave that fact no weight, taking account of the stressful circumstances described in the judgment, including her child’s life-threatening illness and chemotherapy.
The court said the law did not make a decision automatically invalid simply because it came after six months. Instead, a reviewing court had to apply ordinary principles of fairness and justice. In this case, the appeal had been subject to accelerated procedures, no additional documents were awaited, no explanation for the delay was offered, and credibility was central. The judge concluded that the delay raised concerns that the process had been affected by unfairness.
The court stressed that its conclusion was confined to the particular facts and that delays over six months do not always require a decision to be set aside. It quashed the Tribunal decision and remitted the appeal for fresh consideration by a different Tribunal Member. Because the appeal will be considered again, the court made no further observations on the remaining judicial review grounds.