The High Court dismissed a Georgian applicant’s judicial review challenge to a recommendation refusing international protection and a related refusal of permission to remain. Mr Justice Mark Heslin ruled that the application was brought 49 days outside the statutory 28-day time limit and that the applicant had not shown good and sufficient reason to extend it.
The applicant argued that interpretation at his October 2022 protection interview was inaccurate, leading to errors or omissions in the interview record and later decisions. He said he signed the English-language pages after the interpreter gave him a summary in Georgian. The respondents relied on the report’s record that the applicant said he understood the interpreter, agreed with the record and signed each page. Their evidence also described the office’s practice of reading interview notes back in full. The judge identified significant factual disputes between those accounts and said he could not resolve them in a papers-only judicial review.
The recommendation and permission-to-remain decision were notified on 27 March 2023. The applicant applied for judicial review on 12 June, 77 days later. The court considered the chronology offered to explain the delay, including a meeting with a solicitor and interpreter on 21 April, preparation and translation of pleadings, and the filing of proceedings. It found the evidence did not explain why those steps could not have been taken earlier or why the statutory deadline was missed. The applicant had also lodged an appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), requesting an oral hearing, which was granted.
The judge said the IPAT appeal provides a full rehearing where the applicant can address alleged translation errors, give evidence and challenge the interview record. He found it a more appropriate remedy for resolving the factual disputes and said no fundamental procedural flaw depriving the International Protection Officer of jurisdiction had been established.
The court also considered the substance of the translation challenge. It did not find the alleged errors established on the evidence before it. It noted that the applicant did not allege translation problems with several other adverse credibility findings, including issues concerning his account of political activity and alleged kidnappings. The judge concluded that any alleged translation inadequacy was outweighed by the other credibility findings and that the recommendation and decision remained tenably sustained. He said the applicant was not entitled to relief and dismissed the claim.
The respondent was successful. The judge’s preliminary view was that the respondent should receive costs, but the parties were invited to agree the final order, including costs, within 14 days. The judgment does not record a final costs order.