The High Court has refused leave to seek judicial review of a decision refusing an asylum recommendation, finding that the applicant had not made a focused claim to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal that she feared persecution in Ghana because she was perceived to be a witch.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2013, Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh said the Tribunal had fairly answered the case that was put to it. He declined to condemn its decision. The ruling was at the leave stage; the court did not grant leave to pursue judicial review.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as D.O., is from Ghana. She said her uncle arranged for her to marry an older Muslim man, which she rejected. After her uncle died, she said the man sought to take her land in compensation for money he had paid. She described a confrontation shortly before the man was found dead on her land, and said her sister later warned that a mob and men believed to be police had been looking for her.
During an asylum interview, D.O. said she feared being lynched and referred to people associating unnatural events with witchcraft. She also said her “telepathic nature” led people to think she was a witch. The Refugee Applications Commissioner’s report, however, recorded her fear of being wrongly prosecuted over the man’s death and recommended refusing asylum, finding there was adequate state protection in Ghana.
Her appeal notice relied on religion and membership of a particular social group, but did not identify the group or complain that the Commissioner had failed to assess a claim based on being perceived as a witch. Her representatives sought country information on forced marriage, mob justice and police treatment of suspects, but not on the treatment of people perceived to be witches. The Tribunal’s decision likewise did not refer to such a claim.
The applicant argued in the High Court that the Tribunal had failed to decide her core claim. The State’s position was that she had not sought asylum in Ireland on that basis. The judge reviewed the papers and agreed with the State’s account, noting that the Tribunal’s description of the oral submissions had not been challenged. He concluded that the evidence did not show that D.O. had identified “women perceived to be witches” as the social group on which she relied.
The court therefore refused to grant leave to seek judicial review. The judgment did not determine whether the applicant’s account of events in Ghana was true; the judge said the Tribunal had answered the case that had been made to it.