BvThe International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 767
• Docket Number: [2019 No. 204 JR]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 November 2019

[2019] IEHC 767

THE HIGH COURT

Max Barrett

[2019 No. 204 JR]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000, AS AMENDED

BETWEEN

B

APPLICANT

– AND –

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

International protection – Irrationality – Country of origin Information – Applicant seeking international protection – Whether the respondent’s decision was irrational

Facts: The applicant, on 30.03.2013, quit Albania, allegedly due to the threat to him from a criminal gang which, on his account, was engaged in a form of extortion against him. On 12.04.2013, he arrived in Ireland, applied for refugee status and, sometime later in 2013, quit Ireland for the United Kingdom. On 04.12.2017, he was deported by the United Kingdom to Ireland. He was allowed to re-enter the international protection process. On 31.05.2018, his application was rejected by the International Protection Office (IPO). On 05.09.2018, the Legal Aid Board commenced an appeal for him. On 07.12.2018, the Legal Aid Board made various submissions to the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), including a request that the IPAT await an expected SPIRASI Medico-Legal Report. It was explained that the applicant had two scars on his head, allegedly due to his being beaten with a chair. On 10.12.2018, at the appeal hearing, the applicant’s solicitor requested that the IPAT wait to receive the expected SPIRASI report. The IPAT initially indicated that it would give until the first week of January, 2019 for the SPIRASI report. When the applicant’s solicitor indicated that the report was unlikely to be ready by then, the IPAT stated that there should be an update by the first week of January. On 28.12.2018, the applicant’s solicitor emailed IPAT and indicated that she would be on leave until 10.01.2019 and that an “update with regard to SPIRASI report will be provided to the IPAT immediately on my return”. On 02.01.2019, the IPAT replied that it “look[s] forward to receiving the SPIRASI report in

January”, i.e. sometime up to and including 31st January. On 11.02.2019, no update having been provided, the IPAT made a negative decision (the ‘Impugned Decision’) concerning the applicant’s appeal. An allegation of irrationality was made in respect of the observation in the Impugned Decision that it was not credible that a person being subjected to extortion by known criminals would give money to those criminals when he had not known them long and they had no legal hold over him. There was criticism of the IPAT’s observation in the Impugned Decision that applicant would “presumably” have returned to the hospital where he received his stitches to have those stitches removed. This, it was claimed by counsel for the applicant, is unsafe speculation and ought to have been put to the applicant (and he obviously could have gone to a GP or another hospital to have the stitches removed). It was contended that the IPAT took an irrational view on the available country of origin Information (COI) that the applicant would have the protection of the police and Albania’s independent ombudsman (the People’s Advocate) against the criminal gang he feared.

Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that there was no waiting-time for extortion to commence and criminals extorting money may well have no legal hold over a victim. Barrett J did not see that either of the impugned observations by IPAT (or both combined) was (or were) central to the Impugned Decision and perfection in all respects is never a standard to which administrative decisions are ever held. Barrett J did not see that the IPAT sought to equate the assistance of the ombudsman with that of the Albanian police. Barrett J held that the applicant’s solicitor was at fault in not providing an update to IPAT before end-January of 2019. Barrett J held that this did not render the Impugned Decision immune from successful challenge.

Barrett J held that the court would grant the orders sought at items (a) and (b) of the notice of motion of 30.04.2019. Although it was agreed at the hearing of this application that the court did not need to address the dropped ‘extension of time’ argument, Barrett J held that the court would hear the parties briefly as to whether the order sought at (d) was necessary.

Judgment in favour of the applicant.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered 14th day of November, 2019.

1 Perhaps the best way to detail the facts in this case is to provide a timeline of key events:

30.03.2013.	Mr B, then a restauranteur, quits Albania, allegedly due to the threat to him from a criminal gang which, on Mr B's account, was engaged in a form of extortion against him. The statement grounding the ex parte application states, inter alia that “[o]n one occasion [Mr B] … refused to give them [the gang] money and they beat him with a chair, causing cuts on his head which required stitches”.
12.04.2013.	Mr B arrives in Ireland, applies for refugee status and, sometime later in 2013, quits Ireland for the United Kingdom.
04.12.2017.	Mr B is deported by the United Kingdom to Ireland. Mr B is allowed to re-enter the international protection process.
31.05.2018.	Mr B 's application is rejected by the International Protection Office (‘IPO’).
05.09.2018.	Legal Aid Board commences appeal for Mr B.
07.12.2018.	Legal Aid Board makes various submissions to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (‘IPAT’), including a request that the IPAT await an expected SPIRASI Medico-Legal Report (‘ SPIRASI report’). It is explained that Mr B has two scars

...