The High Court has quashed decisions refusing to revoke deportation orders against a Nigerian mother and her children, directing the Minister for Justice to reconsider their applications. The court ruled that medical reports confirming one child had undergone female genital mutilation (FGM) were new and specific evidence that required separate consideration.
Mr Justice Barr delivered judgment on 1 October 2014 in judicial review proceedings. The applicants challenged decisions dated 26 October 2010 refusing to revoke the orders. The court did not quash the deportation orders themselves: it held that a challenge to their making was out of time and that the family could not contest their validity after seeking revocation on the basis that the orders were valid.
The mother had told officials that she had a medical report concerning the circumcision of one of her daughters, but the report had not been supplied before the deportation orders were made. The decision-maker’s September 2010 assessment considered general information about FGM in Nigeria and concluded that returning the applicants would not breach the prohibition on refoulement under section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996.
When the family sought revocation, they provided confirmation from a GP and a consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist that one child had Grade 1 circumcision. The Minister refused the applications after officials concluded that the evidence did not change the earlier assessment.
The applicants argued that the specific medical evidence could not be answered by relying on general country information that FGM was decreasing. The Minister argued that the issue had already been considered and that the threshold for court intervention in a refusal to revoke a valid deportation order had not been met.
Mr Justice Barr found the applicants’ argument on the revocation decisions well founded. The medical reports established that one child had been subjected to FGM, making general country information less persuasive. The Minister had to assess the effect of that evidence in the revocation applications, rather than refer back to an earlier decision that had highlighted the absence of medical evidence. The judgment did not determine the family’s ultimate risk on return; it required the Minister to reconsider the applications in light of the evidence.
The court quashed the 26 October 2010 refusals for the applicants and directed that their applications be referred back to the Minister for reconsideration. It made the same order for the sixth applicant, whose separate refusal had also been signed off on 26 October 2010.