I (G) v Min for Justice and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IEHC 682
• Date: 06 November 2015

[2015] IEHC 682

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 476 J.R./2011]

I (G) v Min for Justice & Ors

No Redaction Needed

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

G.I.

APPLICANT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, RONAN MAGUIRE SITTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, IRELAND AND ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Appeal against decision of refusal of asylum claim – Lack of credibility – Leave to apply for judicial review – Whether the applicant's story would be termed 'wholly implausible and completely lacking in credibility'.

Facts: Following the dismissal of the application for asylum by the Commissioner and later on by the respondent, the applicant sought quashing of the decision of the respondent for leave to apply for judicial review. The respondent questioned the applicant's credibility at a general level. The applicant contended that the respondent had failed to 'take into account' the country of origin information of the applicant.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys held that the application for leave to apply for judicial review would be dismissed. The Court observed that the respondent had not failed to 'take into account' the country of origin information of the applicant. The Court held that the applicant lacked credibility in its entirety. The decision would not be held invalid simply on the pretext of failure to refer in narrative form to any particular country of origin information.

1 1. From 1995 onwards the applicant was engaged in self-employment running a restaurant in Nigeria, his country of origin. He claimed that he was a member of a local youth organisation, the aim of which was to fight corruption in his community by the traditional rulers. He stated that he was the public relations officer and that his function was to represent the association in dealings with oil companies.

2 2. He stated that his problems arose in 1997 when a memorandum of understanding was reached between the community and an oil company in which the company agreed to provide local drainage. The contract was awarded to traditional rulers who, he states, embezzled the contract money. He stated that he was arrested and detained and subsequently released on giving an undertaking as to his future conduct.

3 3. He says that in January 2000, as a result of further agitation in relation to fair allocation of jobs, he was arrested and spent a number of weeks in the police station, only being released when the protest was over.

4 4. He says that in 2002, following a spillage resulting from illegal extraction of oil from pipelines, he was again arrested, and was tortured and beaten up. He was not charged and was only released when he agreed not to continue with the protests.

5 5. He also stated that his business was destroyed in 2007 when he was in detention. He claims that he joined a human rights organisation that same year called AAFRights and was a local coordinator.

6 6. In 2008, a "voodoo" was left in front of his house which he interpreted as a death threat. He subsequently moved house.

7 7. He says that on coming from a meeting in 2010 he was arrested by the police and held for a number of months and then transferred to a prison. In November 2010 he says he met a prison guard and asked him to contact his family and his human rights organisation, AAFRights. He stated that he was not released from prison but escaped from detention.

8 8. He says he left Nigeria on 14 ^th November, 2010 with a man named James Barry. Mr Barry seems to have assisted his travel and essentially played the role of a people trafficker, and the applicant seems to know very little about him. Mr. Barry and the applicant arrived in Ireland on 15 ^th November, 2010, having travelled via Paris.

9 9. On arrival, he and Mr. Barry got a taxi and came to the offices of the Refugee Applications Commissioner where he made an application for asylum.

10 10. That application was in due course rejected by the Commissioner.

11 11. On appeal to the Tribunal, his application was also rejected by a decision dated 19 ^th May, 2011, and it is against that decision that the applicant brings the present application for leave to apply for judicial review.

12 12. The basic ground on which the Tribunal reached its decision is that it rejected the applicant's credibility at a general level.

13 13. The particular aspects of his account that were held to be lacking in credibility were the following:-

(i) The applicant's direct evidence that his problems began with the memorandum of understanding between the oil company and the community in 1997 was contradicted by his s. 11 interview where he stated that the memorandum was in 2008.

(ii) He stated that his restaurant was destroyed in 2007 when he was in detention but in his direct evidence had not given any evidence of being in detention in 2007. He also stated in his s. 11 interview that the restaurant was destroyed in 2008.

(iii) He kept referring to "my human rights organisation" without actually naming the organisation.

(iv) He did not know that the founder of AAFRights was dead.

(v) He produced a list of members of the organisation which, in the view of the Tribunal, did not correspond with information available on the internet.

(vi) The Tribunal Member considered it incredible that a well known human rights organisation would spirit one of its employees out of the country rather than seek to highlight a breach of the applicant's human rights.

(vii) The applicant claimed to know nothing about Mr. James Barry even though this was a person with whom he had travelled from Lagos to Paris to Dublin with and who, on arrival in Dublin, put him in a taxi and directed him to the Commissioner.

(viii) The applicant had stated that he travelled on a passport which did not have his photograph on it. The Tribunal considered it incredible that it was not detected.

(ix) The Tribunal found the idea that the applicant could walk out of a high security prison to lack any sense of credibility.

14 14. Overall, the Tribunal found the applicant's story "to be wholly implausible and completely lacking in credibility" (p. 16 of the decision).

15 15. The applicant issued the present notice of motion on 10 ^th June, 2011. No time point has been taken by the respondents.

Generic nature of the grounds of challenge

16 16. Ms. Silva Martinez, B.L., for the respondents complained by way of initial objection that the grounds on which relief is sought as set out in the statement of grounds are unduly generic, and lack the appropriate specificity required by the rules.

17 17. It is worth noting that of the grounds initially pleaded, grounds (c), (f), (g) and (h) were abandoned as was the last sentence of ground (a).

18 18. I note that the Rules of the Superior Courts (Judicial Review) 2011 did not commence until 1 ^st January, 2012, at which point a more exacting requirement for pleading injudicial review matters came into being. As these pleadings predate the 2011 rules, I would not be prepared to hold that they are unduly generic. However, a more exacting standard must be required of pleadings injudicial review matters instituted after 1 ^st January, 2012.

Did the Tribunal fail to "take into account" country of origin information?...