N (I.T) . v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MS. JUSTICE M. H. CLARK,
• Judgment Date: 13 October 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IEHC 434
• Court: High Court
• Date: 13 October 2009

[2009] IEHC 434

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 931 J.R./2008]

N (I T) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Garvey) & Ors

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

I.T.N.

APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (BEN GARVEY), THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)

N (E) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL UNREP CLARK 5.2.2009 (EX TEMPORE)

PAMBA v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ANOR UNREP COOKE 19.5.2009 (EX TEMPORE)

BANZUZI v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP FEENEY 18.1.2007 2006/6/977 2007 IEHC 2

FASAKIN v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP O'LEARY 21.12.2005 2005/25/5110 2005 IEHC 423

I (CO) v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2008 1 IR 208 2007/29/5917 2007 IEHC 180

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Judicial review - Leave - Credibility - Documentation - Authenticity of documents - Whether documents put in evidence by applicant lacked authenticity - Alleged failure to consider documents - Alleged failure to put doubts about authenticity of documents to applicant - Alleged failure to give reasons for determination that documents lacked authenticity - Extent of duty and obligation to state reasons on which decision based - Whether any doubt as to why tribunal had doubts about authenticity of documents- Whether any obligation on decision maker to refer to each and every piece of information furnished - N v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 56, (Unrep, Clark J, 5/2/2009) considered; Pamba v Refugee Appeals Tribunal (Ex Temp, Cooke J, 19/5/2009) followed; Banzuzi v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 2, (Unrep, Feeney J, 18/1/2007), Fasakin v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 423, (Unrep, O'Leary J, 21/12/2005) and COI v Minister for Justice [2007] IEHC 180, [2008] IR 208 applied - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5(2) - Leave refused (2008/931 JR - Clark J - 13/10/2009) [2009] IEHC 434

N (IT) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Facts the applicant sought leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the respondent refusing her appeal against the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that she not be recognised as a refugee on the ground that the respondent's finding that the documents put in evidence by the applicant in support of her claim for asylum lacked authenticity was unlawful. There were, in effect, three aspects to that complaint: (i) the respondent's failure to consider the original documents; (ii) his failure to put his doubts to the applicant at the oral hearing; and (iii) his failure to state the source of his doubts. It was also complained that the respondent had failed to refer specifically to two medical reports in its decision.

Held by Ms. Justice Clark in refusing to grant leave to seek judicial review that the applicant could not have been in any doubt as to why the respondent had doubts about the authenticity of the documents, nor was the Court in any way impaired in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction in relation to the documents. The discrepancies in the documents and the suspicion of lack of authenticity of the documents were evident on the face of the documents themselves.

That there was no obligation on a decision-maker to refer to each and every piece of information furnished to him. Banzuzi v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 2 applied. The value and weight attached to a particular document will determine whether it merits express consideration in a decision.

Reporter: P.C.

1 This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT), dated the 24 ^th June, 2008, to affirm the earlier recommendation of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner ("the Commissioner") that the applicant should not be granted a declaration of refugee status. Mr. Robert Haughton S.C. and Mr. James Healy B.L. appeared for the applicant and Ms. Siobhán Stack B.L. appeared for the respondents. The hearing took place at the King's Inns in Court No. 1 on the 7 ^th October, 2009.

I. Background

2 The applicant claims to be a national of Cameroon who was born in 1978. She claims to have arrived in the State on the 13 ^th June, 2006. She did not apply for asylum at the airport but instead went to the offices of the Refugee Applications Commissioner where she made her application. Her ASY-1 form is not before the Court.

The Questionnaire

3 The applicant claims that she comes from the English speaking part of Cameroon and that she is university educated to degree level. She worked as a financial assistant. She has three children of her own and one adopted child and is unmarried. The applicant claimed to fear persecution by reason of her political opinion. Her parents were members of the Southern Cameroon's National Council(SCNC) Anglophone separatist group and she became a member when she went to University in 2000. She said that in May, 2006 the SCNC called for members to boycott national celebrations in Anglophone provinces. As a result some leaders were arrested and check points were set up. On the 16 ^th May, 2006 the applicant was travelling in a bus which was stopped at a checkpoint. As the applicant was carrying a parcel containing membership cards and SCNC t-shirts she feared arrest. She tried to escape but the authorities ran after her and sprayed gas in her eyes. She was hit in the face, beaten, handcuffed and taken to the police station where she was held until the 18 ^th May, 2006 when she was transferred to prison. While in prison she was beaten, tortured and kept in an overcrowded and filthy cell. She was forced to sign documents which she was not allowed to read. Her family became aware of her detention and intervened with the help of a lawyer and she was granted release on bail. Seven days later her brother told her that the police were looking for her in her family home. She went into hiding and then fled.

4 She travelled to Ireland to air with a man who presented her as his wife. She stopped over in France for about two hours. Her uncle paid for her journey. With her questionnaire she submitted a document that she said is her SCNC membership card.

The s. 11 Interview

5 The applicant attended for a s. 11 interview with ORAC on the 1 ^st July, 2006. At her interview she submitted a copy of her results from her clerical studies at G.C.E. ordinary level in June, 1996. Those results are noteworthy as they indicate a poor academic performance. The applicant provided a verbatim account of her arrest and detention in May, 2006 as she had written out in her questionnaire. She added that she was beaten in the prison every morning because she was unable to pay the cell fee. A cell mate who was released informed her family of her treatment in prison. Her own role in the SCNC involved selling t-shirts and membership cards; informing people; preparing refreshments during meetings; attending rallies, meetings and conferences.

6 She told the interviewer that she had also been arrested in October, 2005 when she was locked up by the police for three days. No mention was made of any ill treatment during this first period of detention. She then described that after her release from prison the second time on the 30 ^th May, 2006 she stayed in a farmhouse on her father's cocoa plantation and she left Cameroon on the 12 ^th June, 2006. Her children remained behind with her parents. The applicant submitted a medico-legal report from Dr Yves Mbede of the District Hospital in Kumba, Cameroon dated the 31 ^st May, 2006 outlining a visit to the hospital for assault due to severe beatings by security agents including swollen eyes and face, lacerations of the right leg and back and certifying her suffering from incapacity sixty days. She also submitted a Consultation Booklet from Kumba Hospital and a document which purports to be a Warrant for her arrest in Cameroon.

7 The applicant failed to obtain a recommendation that she was a refugee at the ORAC stage. Her knowledge of the SCNC was considered defective and it was considered that the authenticity of the documents she had produced could not be verified and they could have come from any source. It was concluded that her claim did not amount to a well founded fear of persecution.

8 Country of origin information (COI) was annexed to the s. 13 report, including (A) a UK Home Office Cameroon Operational Guidance Noteissued on the 30 ^th January, 2006; (B) a US Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices, Cameroon, 2005;(C) an English version of the SDF website; (D) a Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board report dated the 13 ^th August, 2001; (E) a report from ambazonia.indymedia.org dated the 17 ^th April, 2003; and (F) an article from The Post Online (Cameroon) dated the 5 ^th July, 2006.

The Appeal

9 The applicant appealed this decision and relied on further COI to advance her claim. These were a UK Home Office report on a Fact Finding Mission to Cameroonconducted on the 17 ^th - 25 ^th January, 2004; an Amnesty International report for 2004; and a U.S. Department of State report for 2005, published in March, 2006. For the first time it was alleged that the applicant was beaten and tortured during her arrest and imprisonment in October, 2005. The Notice of Appeal requested that the originals of all documentation produced by the applicant in support of her claim should be made available at her oral appeal hearing.

10 The applicant submitted what purports to be an Affidavit from her lawyer in Cameroon attesting to her story. In addition she furnished six previous decisions of the RAT. Thereafter a number of medical reports were furnished to the Tribunal:-

(i) A letter dated the 9 ^th November, 2006 from SPIRASI (the Centre for the Care of Survivors of Torture) to the applicant's GP in Galway, indicating that the...