The High Court refused an applicant leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision, finding that the Tribunal’s credibility assessment was robust and that its conclusions were rational, reasoned and clear.
In a judgment delivered on 18 June 2013, Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh said the central dispute concerned the applicant presenting a substantially different account to the Tribunal from the one she had given at first instance.
The applicant initially said she was Ghanaian and had come to Ireland for a better life, work opportunities and to help her ill mother and younger siblings. After the Refugee Applications Commissioner found no Convention basis for her claim, she said in her appeal that she was Nigerian and had fled Italy after being trafficked there on the promise of legitimate work. She alleged she was forced into prostitution, told she owed €40,000 and remained in fear of the trafficker over a claimed €20,000 debt.
At the hearing, the court questioned whether the Tribunal could hear an appeal where the material facts had changed. The applicant’s counsel argued that the Notice of Appeal was the proper basis for the Tribunal’s consideration. The respondents said she could instead have withdrawn her application and sought to re-enter the asylum process under section 17(7) of the Refugee Act 1996. The judge concluded that the Tribunal’s role was predominantly inquisitorial and that it was not confined to the issues considered at first instance, so the hearing proceeded.
The applicant challenged the Tribunal’s use of country of origin information, its treatment of documents, its expectation of corroboration, and its assessment of state protection in Nigeria. She also argued that the Tribunal had relied improperly on her demeanour when assessing credibility.
The judge rejected those challenges. He said the criticism that the Tribunal had unfairly placed a burden on the applicant to provide supporting documents mischaracterised its decision, given the history of the case. He accepted that the Tribunal had explained its demeanour findings, including observations that the applicant appeared to guess at answers, delayed responding and gave vague evidence. The court also agreed that the country information had not been used selectively and had informed the Tribunal’s assessment of state protection.
The court’s order was limited to refusing leave to seek judicial review. The judgment did not grant the application or set aside the Tribunal’s decision.