The High Court has granted J.A. leave to seek judicial review of the refusal of subsidiary protection and a deportation order, but only on limited grounds concerning whether the risk of imprisonment and prison conditions in Bangladesh were considered.
In a judgment delivered on 19 April 2013, Mr Justice McDermott found an arguable ground that the Minister had failed to address J.A.’s claim that, if returned to Bangladesh to serve a life sentence, he faced a risk to his life or of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The court said that issue had not been addressed in the subsidiary protection decision.
The court also allowed an amendment to the challenge to the deportation order, limited to a ground alleging that the review of J.A.’s case failed to address prison conditions in Bangladesh as part of his claim under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. The court granted leave to seek judicial review on that ground.
These are permissions to bring judicial review proceedings, not final rulings that either decision was unlawful. The judgment records that J.A. claimed he had been convicted in absentia of robbery in Bangladesh and sentenced to life imprisonment. He said he feared the conditions he would face if returned. The court noted that the Tribunal had found he was fleeing prosecution rather than persecution, while rejecting his claim of political persecution. It also noted that documents relating to the alleged trial and conviction had not been verified.
The court refused leave on the other grounds challenging the subsidiary protection decision, including claims concerning the Minister’s consideration of the application and country information. It refused leave on the other deportation grounds, including a complaint that the order was unsigned by the Minister.
J.A. also sought to challenge the Refugee Appeals Tribunal’s 2010 decision refusing refugee status. The court refused an extension of time for that challenge, citing the absence of evidence explaining the delay and finding the grounds advanced did not amount to substantial grounds. The challenge to the Tribunal decision therefore did not proceed.
The court also permitted an amendment to the subsidiary protection challenge based on a later European Court of Justice decision concerning the right to be heard in separate asylum and subsidiary protection procedures. The judgment did not decide the substantive judicial review claims; it granted leave on the specified grounds at this preliminary stage.