The High Court has granted a Congolese man leave to challenge the way the Refugee Appeals Tribunal assessed his credibility and medical evidence in rejecting his asylum appeal. The court did not decide whether he qualifies for refugee status or whether his account is true.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2010, Ms Justice M.H. Clark said the applicant could argue that the Tribunal’s credibility assessment was irrational and unreasonable because it was disproportionately influenced by problems in his wife’s account, despite his own detailed knowledge of the Bundu dia Kongo (BDK). He may also challenge the rejection of medical evidence as a consequence of the negative credibility finding.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as K.K., had sought asylum in Ireland in August 2004. He said he joined the BDK, a political and spiritual movement, in Kinshasa in 1998 and was arrested in 2002 after complaining about taxes on traders. He claimed he was later detained, abused and injured, and escaped from hospital in 2004 before travelling to Ireland. These were his claims, not findings made by the High Court.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had upheld the negative recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The Commissioner relied in part on country information indicating that a 2003 amnesty had released BDK members arrested after a march. At his 2007 appeal hearing, the applicant also described rape during detention. The Tribunal member considered this a late-raised allegation and identified inconsistencies between the applicant’s and his wife’s accounts. He concluded that doubts about the applicant’s BDK membership undermined his account of persecution.
Justice Clark said the Tribunal member had mistakenly believed the applicant first raised rape at the oral hearing, and the court was concerned this may have affected the credibility assessment. She also noted that the applicant had supplied documents relating to identity and BDK membership, and a SPIRASI medical report describing scars and marks as consistent with repeated physical abuse. The court said it was not its role in judicial review to reassess credibility or replace the Tribunal’s view with its own.
The applicant also argued that the Tribunal failed to assess the risk he might face if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The court refused leave on that ground because it had not been included in the statement of grounds or written submissions and was raised only at the leave hearing. The judge said it should be addressed at a rehearing if the substantive judicial review succeeds.
The ruling grants leave to argue two grounds; it does not overturn the Tribunal’s decision or determine the substantive judicial review.