The High Court refused J.N.E. leave to appeal its earlier refusal of leave to seek judicial review, finding that the proposed legal questions did not meet the required criteria.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 20 February 2017. In November 2016, he had refused J.N.E. leave to apply for judicial review. J.N.E. then sought permission to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. The respondents opposed the application.
The first proposed question concerned whether an international protection decision-maker could decline to make findings on some elements of a statutory test after the claim failed on other criteria. The judge rejected the argument that the decision-maker was required to determine every issue, including points that would not affect the result. He said the issue raised no real doubt and noted that a similar point was already before the Court of Appeal in another case.
The second proposed question asked whether a first-instance decision-maker must apply the correct standard of proof despite the availability of an appeal. The judge said decision-makers must apply the correct standard, but that was not the issue arising from his earlier judgment. The underlying case alleged that the commissioner had weighed evidence incorrectly in relation to the standard of proof. The judge classified that as a merits issue for which an appeal was the primary remedy, and concluded the proposed question was neither raised by his judgment nor determinative of the proceedings.
The court also noted that the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s office had been abolished from 1 January 2017 under the International Protection Act 2015, with the future process governed by new legislation. It said the proposed points therefore did not warrant an appeal as questions of exceptional public importance under a repealed statutory scheme.
The order was limited to the application for leave to appeal: the High Court refused it. This judgment did not determine a substantive appeal to the Court of Appeal.