S.N. (Ghana) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 10 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 495 J.R.] |
| Date | 11 January 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 10
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Humphreys J.
[2018 No. 495 J.R.]
AND
Immigration and asylum – Subsidiary protection – Certiorari – Applicant seeking certiorari of the respondent’s decision – Whether there was unfairness, error and irrationality
Facts: The applicant was born in Ghana in 1978. He claimed he was reared in a pagan tradition and then converted to Christianity. He claimed that his mother’s uncle was a traditional chief. The uncle allegedly died in 2001 and the applicant was asked to take on this role in 2016. He gave two versions of what happened between 2001 and 2016, one being that the applicant’s mother assumed chieftainship functions and another version being that there was no chief and that another uncle took the decisions. He gave multiple versions as to how the succession was meant to devolve and why it came to him. He stated that he was unwilling to participate in the pagan rituals involved and that following physical violence and threats he made a complaint to the police, in response to which the elders allegedly engaged a mob to hunt him down, using a white powdered substance to do so. He left Ghana and claimed that with the help of a mystery “good Samaritan” he came to Ireland, arriving on 24th May, 2016. He applied for asylum, which was rejected on 18th November, 2016. He appealed that rejection to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Following the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015 he applied for subsidiary protection. That was rejected on 22nd November, 2017. He appealed that refusal to the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. An oral hearing took place on 7th March, 2018. The applicant was notified on 23rd April, 2018 that the appeals had failed. The High Court (Humphreys J) granted leave on 25th June, 2018, the primary relief being certiorari of the tribunal decision. The applicant alleged the following: 1) non-compliance with s. 28(4)(b) and (c) of the 2015 Act; 2) error or irrationality in relation to succession to the chieftaincy; 3) error or irrationality in relation to the persecution claim; 4) unfairness, error and irrationality; 5) irrational or selective reading of the material regarding chieftaincy; and 6) failure to assess the actual subsidiary protection claim made.
Held by Humphreys J that there were at least eleven reasoned and entirely legitimate factors that were taken into account by the tribunal in rejecting the credibility of the applicant’s account. Humphreys J held that this was not a case where that account was rejected on any unsustainable or culturally unreasonable basis.
Humphreys J held that time would be extended for the making of the application up to the date on which it was made and that the proceedings would be dismissed.
Proceedings dismissed.
The applicant was born in Ghana in 1978. He claims he was reared in a pagan tradition and then converted to Christianity. He claims that his mother's uncle was a traditional chief. The uncle allegedly died in 2001 and the applicant was asked to take on this role in 2016. He gave two versions of what happened between 2001 and 2016, one being that the applicant's mother assumed chieftainship functions and another version being that there was no chief and that another uncle took the decisions. He gave multiple versions as to how the succession was meant to devolve and why it came to him. He stated that he was unwilling to participate in the pagan rituals involved and that following physical violence and threats he made a complaint to the police, in response to which the elders allegedly engaged a mob to hunt him down, using a white powdered substance to do so.
He left Ghana and claims that with the help of a mystery ‘ good Samaritan’ he came to Ireland, arriving on 24th May, 2016. He applied for asylum, which was rejected on 18th November, 2016. He appealed that rejection to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Following the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015 he applied for subsidiary protection. That was rejected on 22nd November, 2017. He appealed that refusal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal.
An oral hearing took place on 7th March, 2018. Ms. Nóra Ní Loinsigh B.L. appeared for the applicant, and Ms. Irene Fisher B.L. for the International Protection Office. The applicant was notified on 23rd April, 2018 that the appeals had failed.
I granted leave on 25th June, 2018, the primary relief being certiorari of the tribunal decision. A statement of opposition was filed on 12th December, 2018. I have received helpful submissions from Mr. Michael Conlon S.C. (with Mr. Garry O'Halloran B.L.) for the applicant and from Ms. Lucy McRoberts B.L. for the respondents.
The delay in the initiation of proceedings is adequately explained in para. 14 of the applicant's affidavit. I also take into account as part of the overall circumstances, without in any way criticising anybody, the fact that the respondents took five-and-a-half months from the initiation of proceedings to deliver their statement of opposition, which caused more lapse of time in the progressing of the proceedings than the relatively brief delay in initiating the leave application. The latter delay should be viewed in the overall context in assessing whether to extend time.
The essential complaint made under this heading, although one would not necessarily know it from the way in which the ground is worded, is that the tribunal applied an unduly Western perspective and failed to take into account the cultural context in Ghana in assessing the applicant's claim. I can deal with that omnibus point under this heading, although I also take into account the other grounds that reformulate the same point, to no particular beneficial effect. Mr. Conlon complains that the applicant's story was, as he puts it, ‘ thrown out’ in circumstances where the applicant was relying on a translator and where he says Western perceptions of probability, reasonableness and belief were taken into account rather than Ghanaian perceptions.
The fact that the applicant is relying on a translator does not give rise to grounds for judicial review. The applicant has not put in any evidence that anything he said was mistranslated.
Neuberger L.J., as he then was, in H.K. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ. 1037, commented at para. 28 that: ‘ In many asylum cases, some, even most, of the appellant's story may seem inherently unlikely but that does not mean that it is untrue.’ He went on to say that ‘ The ingredients of the story, and the story as a whole, have to be considered against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial