The High Court quashed a decision refusing subsidiary protection to an anonymised applicant from Cameroon after finding that the decision-maker had relied extensively on adverse credibility findings from his earlier asylum appeal without making a fresh, independent assessment.
Mr Justice McDermott delivered the judgment on 12 December 2017. The judicial review concerned a refusal made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on 26 October 2012. The applicant had also challenged the absence of an oral interview or hearing during the subsidiary protection process.
The applicant had claimed that he feared harm in Cameroon because he refused to succeed his late father as chief, a role he said would require him to uphold traditional spiritual practices. His refugee application had been refused after the Refugee Appeals Tribunal found that aspects of his account were not credible. Those were findings made in the earlier asylum process, not findings made afresh in the subsidiary protection determination.
The Minister’s subsidiary protection determination quoted extensively from the Tribunal’s credibility findings and concluded that the applicant’s claim was not credible. The High Court found no evidence that he had been invited to address those adverse findings, given a fresh opportunity to revisit matters relevant to subsidiary protection, or assessed independently on credibility in that process.
The court held that fair procedures required a separate and independent decision on the subsidiary protection application. The applicant had to be able to respond to adverse credibility findings carried over from the asylum process and revisit relevant matters. On that basis, the court allowed an amendment to the judicial review grounds and quashed the subsidiary protection refusal.
The court rejected the original claim that the applicant was entitled to an oral interview or hearing in this case. It found that the specific circumstances identified in the relevant Court of Justice guidance as requiring an interview were not present. The judgment noted that the right to be heard does not generally require an oral interview in a two-stage process; written submissions may suffice, depending on the circumstances.
The applicant’s status in Ireland had changed and he had since been granted leave to remain. The court therefore did not rule on the challenge to a deportation order. It observed that the deportation challenge was largely based on the successful challenge to the subsidiary protection decision and said it would have granted the relief sought.