S (R) [Sierra Leone] v Min for Justice and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Eagar |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 138 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 04 March 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 138
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Refugee Appeals Tribunal – Refusal of asylum claim – Judicial Review – Fear of persecution – Whether applicant's evidence credible – Internal relocation
Facts: The applicant sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal for refusal of asylum. The applicant sought an injunction restraining the first named respondent from deporting the applicant to the country of origin.
Mr. Justice Eagar refused to grant an order of certiorari to the applicant. The Court found that the applicant had failed to establish credibility in the statements made by her. The Court observed that the applicant could not substantiate the averments made by her by way of documentary evidence. The Court upheld the reasons given by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal for the credibility findings and found them to be just and appropriate. The Court opined to severe the state protection finding and supported the internal relocation finding made by the Tribunal.
1. This is a telescoped application for an order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the decision of the second named Respondent dated the 13 th December 2010 and an injunction restraining the first named Respondent from deporting the Applicant herein pending the outcome of these proceedings.
2. The Applicant is a citizen of Sierra Leone and travelled to the State in or around the month of July 2006. She states in her affidavit that she applied for asylum in Ireland at that time and attended for an interview under s. 11 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the 7 th February 2007. The Refugee Applications Commissioner's recommendation was that her application should be refused and this recommendation was subsequently appealed and later upheld by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal following a hearing held on the 29 th November 2010.
3. The Applicant told the second named Respondent that her difficulties started in Kambia in Sierra Leone when the people she believed were her parents told her to marry their son. The Applicant states that in 1997 rebels invaded her village and the people she believed were her parents were killed. According to the Applicant she believes she was 21 years of age at the time. The Applicant said she was taken to the bush by rebels, beaten and raped. She states she was in the bush for many months when she states she was then taken by another rebel group. She was forced to become the wife of a rebel called L.S. She said she had three children with this man and that after the birth of each of these children they were taken from her. The Applicant said she tried to escape on two occasions from this man but she was caught.
4. The Applicant said she would go to the market to do hair when L.S. was not around. She stated she had plaited the hair of a white woman called "Sisi" in the market a few times. One day when Sisi saw the Applicant crying the Applicant told her the story and Sisi told the Applicant to follow her. The Applicant said she went on to a bus but does not know where the bus took her. They slept somewhere and later entered a big boat that brought the Applicant and Sisi to Ireland. The Applicant said it took one month to get to Ireland and did not know what country the boat stopped in as she did not want to ask Sisi where she was going. The Applicant said she could speak Krio and that she learnt English in Ireland when she was at the hostel and at school.
5. When asked who she was afraid of the Applicant said she was afraid of her adopted husband as he had told her that if he caught her he would kill her. She said that she could not move elsewhere in Sierra Leone as she had no family or relatives and she had no one to look after her. When asked if L.S. would have difficulties from the police if he killed her, the Applicant said that L.S. had killed people before and that the police were afraid of him. When asked why the police were afraid of L.S. the Applicant said that this man was a rebel. She said that people hate her as they believed that she does the same thing as her husband's rebel group.
6. The Applicant said she had a scar on the back of her heel and on her left hand due to knife marks from L.S. and the markings were shown to the Tribunal and the presenting officer. The Applicant confirmed that she had no medical reports in relation to these markings. The Applicant said that L.S. treated her like a slave and he raped her.
7. The Applicant in cross examination agreed that L.S. was unpopular in Sierra Leone and that if people saw him they would run as he had a bad character. She was asked which rebel group the man belonged to and the Applicant said she did not know. She said she had not been given a chance to know this man's secrets or to know anything about him. She said that people were afraid of her because of her relationship with L.S. The Applicant said she would go to market in Buedu and this was where she met Sisi. The Applicant said that Sisi worked in the market as she was in the diamond business. When asked how frequently she went to the market the Applicant replied "not every Friday".
8. When asked if everyone in Sierra Leone knew L.S. the Applicant confirmed they did. When asked if he had been on TV the Applicant said they did not have a TV and was not aware if L.S. was mentioned in newspapers. She said that everyone knew this man as he was a rebel. He had many in his group and people were scared of him. She said that the people in the area were aware that she was connected with L.S. as they lived together and he was her "adopted" husband. The Applicant said that Sisi was nice and friendly towards her and she confirmed that she had not enquired about her destination and that there were many people on the boat who she travelled to Ireland with. She followed Sisi to a car and they went to the Department of Justice.
9. She was asked about the dominant ethnic groups and she named them. She also correctly named the river in which Kakuna was located on. When asked why she had not enquired about where she was to travel to, particularly as she was pregnant, the Applicant said that she did not ask and had made up her mind to accept all that was happening. When asked if she could report L.S. to the authorities were she to return the Applicant said she would not go back. She said she could not locate to Kenema or Freetown as she would be located and the NGOs would not assist her as they would need money. The Applicant said she was using L.S.'s surname as she lived with him and the people she believed were aware that her parents were dead.
10. The Applicant states that she lived with her adopted husband for 9 years in Buedu and she states that other people hate her as they believe that the Applicant is associated with L.S's rebel group. The Applicant states that L.S. was well known to the people and the police were afraid of him.
11. The second named Respondent found a number of issues of credibility: The Applicant was unable to name the rebel group that L.S. belonged to. She also states that she lived with him for 9 years. The finding in relation to credibility is put as follows:
a "(a) Considering the Applicant's testimony and the length of time she states she was forcibly detained by L.S. it is difficult to understand why she would not know what rebel group L.S. was associated with.
(b) The second named Respondent said it was not credible that a person who was not well known to the Applicant would organise and pay for the Applicant's travel to Ireland with the Applicant by boat.
(c) If L.S. was a well known rebel whom the authorities feared it would be reasonable to assume that some information about this man would be available and the fact that no such report had been produced or submitted calls into question the Applicant's claim that the man was well known and a feared rebel who is still operating after the war.
(d) The Applicant had a scar and discoloured skin on her heel and a scar on her left hand which states were knife marks inflicted by L.S. No medical reports had been submitted however and having considered the credibility issues it is difficult to associate these markings with the asylum claim as accounted by the Applicant."
12. The second named Respondent considered para. 37 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status of the UNHCR (HPCDRS). She also quotes Peart J. in the case of Imafu and she states that having regard to the credibility issues that arose the Applicant could not be given the benefit of the doubt.
13. She then proceeded to deal with the issue of state protection. The Applicant states she never reported her problems to the authorities in Sierra Leone and she did not think the authorities would help. The second named Respondent said that the government of Sierra Leone established a special court to bring justice to those who were involved in war crimes and atrocities however only a total of 13 people had been indicted since the year 2002. She also quoted Birmingham J. in a case of Bamidele v. The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, 3 rd June 2008 where Birmingham J said:-
"I feel I must also have regard to the accepted principles both domestically and internationally that absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary a state is to be presumed capable of protecting its citizens."
14. She then dealt with internal relocation and suggested Freetown would be a viable alternative for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial