B (C) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judge | Mr. Justice Barr |
Judgment Date | 02 October 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 496 |
Date | 02 October 2014 |
[2014] IEHC 496
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13
B (K) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & OFFICE OF THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP MAC EOCHAIDH 12.4.2013 2013/5/1203 2013 IEHC 169
M (J) & ORS v PLATINUM INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT LTD UNREP MCGOVERN 19.12.2008 2008/38/8265 2008 IEHC 421
O (SM) v REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR & ORS UNREP COOKE 7.5.2009 2009/43/10703 2009 IEHC 219
J (S) v REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR & ORS UNREP MCDERMOTT 7.3.2014 2014 IEHC 108
G (MY) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR UNREP HERBERT 28.4.2010 2010/20/4828 2010 IEHC 127
V (F) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP BIRMINGHAM 21.1.2009 2009/56/14304 2009 IEHC 185
KRAMARENKO v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (MCGARRY) & ORS 2005 4 IR 321 2004 2 ILRM 550 2004/26/6170 2004 IEHC 101
IMAFU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP PEART 9.12.2005 2005/31/6380 2005 IEHC 416
B (A) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP MAC EOCHAIDH 8.2.2013 2013/4/1105 2013 IEHC 46
O (NTM) [SUDAN] v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (BRENNAN) UNREP CLARK 10.12.2013 2013/40/11761 2013 IEHC 563
E (LD) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (GARVEY) UNREP COOKE 16.3.2010 2010/18/4359 2010 IEHC 139
Appeal – Refugee – Persecution – Extension of Time – Credibility – Country of Origin Information
Facts: The applicant, a national of Guinea, claimed that whilst at University he and a number of other students set up a group to protest against the decision of the President of the college to convert some student accommodation into lecture rooms. He alleged that he was subsequently arrested and imprisoned. Upon his release the group was formalised and in 2007 during a national strike, he protested against Government policy. On 12th February 2007, the applicant claimed that he was arrested and sent to prison. On 17th June 2008, the applicant claimed that the prison was attacked by the Military because the Police, who had control of the prison, were agitating for better pay and conditions. Country of Origin information on this event was submitted. He managed to escape but maintained that he was beaten and tortured whilst in prison. In particular, he stated that he suffered burns to his feet with lighted cigarettes. He also claimed that he was put facing the setting sun and made to look at it, which caused damage to his eyesight. Having sought refuge with his uncle, he was moved to Nonga, where he stayed with a friend of his uncle for two months. It was claimed that arrangements were then made for his flight to Ireland. He travelled by air to France, and after a short period, he flew on to Ireland, where he followed the applicable procedures for claiming asylum. The RAC recommended that the applicant not be recognised as a refugee. The applicant appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter RAT). In a decision dated 8th December 2009, the RAT affirmed the recommendation of the RAC. The applicant then sought an order quashing the decision of the RAT. The applicant also sought a short extension of time in respect of the institution of those proceedings. The respondent took issue with what it perceived as an attempt by the applicant to run new grounds of challenge to the decision of the RAT; in particular, a challenge to the assessment of the medical report provided by the applicant”s GP, and a complaint that the Tribunal made no specific finding on the applicant”s alleged nationality and ethnicity. The respondents submitted that the complaint about the assessment of the medical report could not be construed within the existing grounds of challenge because it was not exhibited to the proceedings when they were instituted in 2010. Secondly, the respondent submitted that none of the grounds in the Statement of Grounds made any complaint about the assessment of the case by reference to the applicant”s nationality or ethnicity. The respondents submitted that the new grounds of challenge could not be allowed at such a late stage, particularly where no motion was issued on behalf of the applicant to do so, and where admitting those new grounds would prejudice the respondents.
Held by Justice Barr that he was satisfied that the delay in which proceedings should have been instituted was caused by the fact that there was a change in solicitor on behalf of the applicant. Acknowledging that there was no undue delay on behalf of the present solicitor, and that there should have been an affidavit from the RLS dealing with the initial delay from early February until 26th February 2010, the Court was of the view that it was fair and reasonable that the applicant should be given the short extension of time to facilitate the institution of proceedings. As the applicant was not personally to blame for any of the delay in this case, Justice Barr extended the time for the institution of proceedings up to and including 18th March 2010. In light of Guo v. Minister for Justice (Unreported, High Court, 28th April 2010), and other applicable case-law, it was reasoned that the respondents submissions in respects of the late evidence was correct. It was stated that the applicant could not seek to rely on new grounds not contained in the Statement of Grounds without bringing a motion to amend his Statement of Grounds. As that was not done, the applicant could not consequently make the case that the RAT had failed to take into account the content of the medical report, as submitted by the applicant”s GP, and/or the failure to make any finding on the applicant”s nationality or ethnicity. Whilst the RAC had found the applicant to be unreliable and un-credible, Justice Barr was satisfied that the two articles submitted on the 17 th June 2008 were significant pieces of evidence. They supported the applicant”s core story in an important respect. It was reasoned that they should have been given individual assessment by the RAT. Reasoning that there was limited appraisal by the Tribunal of those important documents, it was determined that the RAT had erred and on that basis, the decision could not stand. In respects of the further findings of the RAT challenged by the applicant namely, that he should have claimed asylum in France if he was so afraid and secondly, that the applicant was vague and evasive in the giving of his evidence, Justice Barr determined that there was no obligation on a person seeking asylum to do so in the first safe country they come to. It was further reasoned that the Tribunal should be careful that in making a credibility determination that, they should not confuse a lack of understanding on the part of the applicant with an attempt by him to be vague or evasive. On the basis that the decision of the RAT did not refer explicitly to the COI in the form of the two internet articles dated 17th June 2008, the decision was quashed and the matter remitted to the RAT for reconsideration before a different Tribunal Member.
1. The applicant was born on 10 th March 1986 in Conakry, Guinea. In 2004, he sat his final school exam. He then went to university. He says that after he had been about one month in the university, he and some other students set up a group to protest against the decision of the President of the college to convert some student accommodation into lecture rooms. The applicant maintains that he was arrested on 21 st November 2004. He stated at interview that 20 of the group were sent to prison at this time. A few days later, they were released.
2. The applicant maintains that following this, they decided to put the group on a more formal footing and it was given a name - 'Council for Students'. The applicant said that he was the secretary of this group. There was some divergence as to when the group actually received its name. This will be referred to in more detail later in the judgment.
3. In 2007, there was a national strike. The applicant maintained that his Student Union participated in this strike. From 10 th January 2007 until 11 th February 2007, the applicant and his group went out each day to protest against Government policy. On 12 th February 2007, the President of Guinea declared that if anybody came out after that day, they would be taken to prison. On that same day, the applicant was arrested at his home. He was brought to a prison in the city of Conakry known as Surete Urbaine de Conakry.
4. On 17 th June 2008, the applicant says that the prison was attacked by the Military because the Police, who had control of the prison, were agitating for better pay and conditions. Country of origin information (hereinafter COI) submitted by the applicant refers to the fact that a number of police stations were attacked and looted by the Military on that date. The applicant says that all the prisoners managed to escape from the prison that day, and he was one of them.
5. The applicant maintains that he was beaten and tortured while in prison. In particular, he suffered burns to his feet with lighted cigarettes. He also claims that he was put facing the setting sun and made to look at it, which caused damage to his eyesight.
6. When he escaped, the applicant went to his uncle's home in Lambadj. It took him approximately one hour to get there. He only remained there for a number of hours. From there, he went to Nonga, where he stayed with a friend of his uncle. He stayed there for two months. Arrangements were made for his flight to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
T.U. (Nigeria) and Others v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others
...v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP COOKE 24.7.2009 2009/47/11866 2009 IEHC 353 B (C) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP BARR 2.10.2014 2014 IEHC 496 B (AS) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP BARR 2.10.2014 2014 IEHC 495 S (DM) v MINISTER FOR JUSTICE UNREP PEART 24.11.2005 2005/53/1122......