The High Court has quashed a deportation order against an Egyptian national after finding that the Minister for Justice had not adequately explained her assessment of his claimed risk of torture if returned to Egypt.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell ruled on 23 January 2024 that the Minister’s written reasons did not address the applicant’s central claim: that the family of a man who died in a workplace accident had used its influence to have him detained and tortured by Egyptian police, and had continued to pursue him and his father.
The applicant’s account was considered by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) during his unsuccessful appeal for subsidiary protection. The Tribunal accepted material parts of his account, including that he had been tortured in detention and that the deceased man’s family had instigated the police’s actions. It found substantial grounds for believing he would face a real risk of serious harm if returned to Egypt, but excluded him from subsidiary protection because of his rape conviction.
In the later deportation decision, the Minister accepted that the applicant had been tortured in Egypt in 2007 and 2010. She also acknowledged reports of torture in Egyptian detention facilities. Her reasons relied in part on the absence of evidence that he faced pending charges or was otherwise likely to be detained if returned.
The judge said those reasons did not explain how the Minister dealt with the alleged role and continuing influence of the deceased man’s family, including the IPAT findings that the family had pursued the applicant and his father until relatively recently. The court did not decide whether the applicant would face torture if deported, or require the Minister to accept IPAT’s conclusions. It found that the decision did not make clear whether this central risk factor had been considered and, if so, how it was assessed.
The court rejected the applicant’s separate argument that the Minister had wrongly relied on Article 21 of the EU Qualification Directive. It held that the decision, read as a whole, showed the Minister considered the non-refoulement question before addressing the exclusion criteria.
The Minister had also argued that the judicial review was brought late. The court granted an extension of time, citing the relatively short delay, the seriousness of the issue and the explanation given for the time needed to prepare the case. It quashed the 11 October 2023 deportation order and remitted the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration. The court did not address the applicant’s further constitutional and ECHR arguments. Final orders and costs were adjourned for submissions on 26 January 2024.