CA v Minister for Justice and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh
• Judgment Date: 20 December 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 564
• Court: High Court
• Date: 20 December 2012

[2012] IEHC 564

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 53 J.R./2009]

A (C) v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Garvey)

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

C A

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY AND BEN GARVEY SITTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENTS

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS 2006 SI 518/2006 REG 5

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11B

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11

O (R) (AN INFANT) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (LEVEY) UNREP MAC EOCHAIDH 20.12.2012 2012 IEHC 573

KEEGAN & LYSAGHT, STATE v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 1987 ILRM 202

R (I) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP COOKE 24.7.2009 2009/47/11866 2009 IEHC 353

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Application for leave to seek judicial review - Nigeria - Credibility assessment - Obligation to give reasons - Questions to discern if adequate reasons given for credibility findings - Rationality of credibility findings - Role of court - Whether adequate reasons given for credibility findings - Whether credibility findings rational - Omidiran (An Infant) v Minister for Justice and Equality [2012] IEHC 573, (Unrep, Mac Eochaidh J, 20/12/2012); State (Keegan) v The Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642 and R(I) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 353, (Unrep, Cooke J, 24/7/2009) applied - Leave granted (2009/53JR - Mac Eochaidh J - 20/12/2012) [2012] IEHC 564

CA v Minister for Justice & Equality

Facts: The applicant was originally from Nigeria and he applied for asylum upon entering the country on the 26 ^th May 2008. The applicant”s asylum application was rejected at first instance and on appeal due to doubts about his credibility. It was his claim that he had been a member of a militant group called the Niger Delta Vigilantes and an associate of MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta). These organisations would be involved in a campaign of violence against Shell Oil activities in the country. He claimed he left the organisations and began working for Shell but was subsequently kidnapped by his former colleagues and placed in a six foot deep hole. He claimed he escaped with the assistance of a friend and made his way to Ireland via Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The grounds for the challenge were that the credibility findings were irrational, no adequate reasons were given for the credibility findings, and that the decision was ultra vires by virtue of the fact that the relevant matters were not adequately considered in breach of Regulation 5 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

Held by Mac Eochaidh J that upon examination of the reasons given for the decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, there were a number of matters that, contrary to the applicant”s assertion, appeared to be too vague to be considered a clear finding of fact. In terms of his membership of the Niger Delta Vigilantes and MEND, the conclusion of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was considered to express doubt as opposed to outright disbelief of the applicant”s claim. There was deemed to be no clear credibility finding on this point and so the rationality and reasoning did not need to be examined.

It was further held however that three negative credibility findings of the Tribunal lacked a rational basis or sufficient reasoning. These were that the Tribunal did not believe the applicant”s claim that when he had been placed in a hole by his former colleagues, a friend had come to his assistance; that the applicant had spent a month in Zimbabwe and 3 months in South Africa before travelling to Ireland; and that he had not applied for asylum in South Africa because he was not aware of the process until he came to Ireland. Because there was a lack of reasoning for the decisions reached in these three points, it was deemed to be difficult to discern rationality.

As such, it was decided that these three points established substantial grounds for the applicant”s contention that the decision reached by the Tribunal was unlawful on the basis of irrationality and lack of adequate reasoning.

Leave to apply for judicial review granted.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh delivered on the 20th day of December, 2012

2 1. This is an application for leave to seek judicial review of a negative decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Fifteen numbered paragraphs were advanced in the intended statement of opposition at Section E entitled 'Grounds on which Relief is Sought'. Ultimately, counsel on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Ian Whelan B.L, indicated that the grounds of challenge to the decision of the Tribunal were:

3 i i. the credibility findings are irrational;

4 ii ii. no reasons or no adequate reasons are given for the credibility findings;

5 iii iii. the Tribunal acted in breach of Regulation 5 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, by failing to take into account and have regard to the matters required to be considered, and that consequently, the decision is ultra vires.

6 2. These grounds are particularised by the assertion that "the RAT erred in placing reliance on unwarranted and unsupported conjecture and speculation in reaching conclusions and/or drawing negative inferences regarding the applicant and in assessing his claim".

Background

7 3. The applicant was born in Nigeria in 1967. He married in 2000 and is the father of four children. He claims to have been a former member of a militant group called the Niger Delta Vigilantes and also associated with MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta). These organisations are said to engage in violent activities and run a campaign of attack on Shell Oil activities in Nigeria. It is said that he gave important information to Shell regarding the activities of these organisations after he left those organisations and came to work for Shell. As a result, his former colleagues kidnapped him, placed him in a hole six feet deep, from which he escaped, travelling to Zimbabwe, spending three months in South Africa, and eventually arriving in Ireland on the 26th day of May, 2008 to seek asylum.

8 4. As the rationality of the credibility findings, together with the complaint as to the absence or inadequacy of reasons for those findings are at the heart of this case, it is appropriate to set out those findings before identifying the standard by which the reviewing court should examine credibility findings.

9 5. Section 3 of the Tribunal's decision is entitled 'The Applicant's Claim' and the second part of that section describes the exchange between the applicant and the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal relative to his evidence. It is in the following terms:

"In response to the presenting officer, the Applicant said that he left MEND in 2004 and from then until 2008, when he left Nigeria, he gave information about the organisation whilst working in RANC and Shell. He was asked if he had any contact with anybody in MEND during the four years and he replied, no. The Applicant stated that MEND had influence in the police, the government and the entire population of Nigeria. It was put to him that he is alleging he gave information about them, even though they had a huge area of influence. The Applicant replied, yes. It was put to him that if he joined MEND because he believed in their cause, it is difficult to accept that he went to work for Shell who were the target of their action. It was put to him that he joined MEND in 2003, but all the information the Commissioner could unearth states that it did not come into existence until 2006. The Applicant disputed these findings and said it was in existence a long time. During his time in MEND, he was asked if he partook in kidnapping and blowing up pipelines. The Applicant said that if they had a problem, I would help them and sometimes I would drive them to do things. He was asked if he assisted in kidnapping and he replied that I would drive them to the targeted person. The Applicant maintained that because he spoke to the tea lady in Shell, members of the MEND kidnapped and tried to kill him by placing him in a deep hole. He was referred to his Questionnaire where he stated he gave information to Shell about the secrets of MEND containing, inter alia, strengths, weaknesses, tactics, training methods, numbers and locations, also forest and swamp areas where this terror group held hostages. The Applicant stated that as a result of disclosing this information, Shell workers were rescued without paying a ransom. It was put to him that these details would not represent casual talk to the tea lady resulting in the Applicant having to flee Nigeria. The Applicant replied, 'I told the tea lady only because I didn't like...