T (D) v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Cooke
• Judgment Date: 03 November 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IEHC 482
• Date: 03 November 2009
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [No. 1626 J.R./2007]

[2009] IEHC 482

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1626 J.R./2007]

T (D) v Min for Justice & Refugee Appeals Tribunal

BETWEEN

D.T.

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY & LAW REFORM AND REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENTS

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS 2006 SI 518/2006 REG 7

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS 2006 SI 518/2006 REG 7(2)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Leave to apply for judicial review - Internal relocation - Private domestic fear of persecution by brother - Whether fear of prosecution could be avoided on return to country of origin - County of origin information - Whether obligation on tribunal to have regard to general circumstances or seek out specific information on economic and social conditions prevailing at proposed site of relocation - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), ss 11 and 13 - European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI 518/2006), reg 7 - Leave to seek judicial review refused (2007/1626JR - Cooke J- 3/11/2009) [2009] IEHC 482

T (D) v Minister for Justice

Mr. Justice Cooke

1 Although a large number of grounds are proposed in the draft statement of grounds in this case one main issue is put forward as the basis of the application for an order ofcertiorari for which leave is now sought.

2 It is claimed that the negative decision on the applicant's asylum claim given by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in its decision of the 19^th October, 2007, is unlawful in concluding that the applicant's claimed fear of persecution could be avoided on return to Sierra Leone if she relocated from Mayomba, where she previously lived, to Freetown. It is unlawful in that regard because no information was before the Tribunal Member or consulted by him as to whether Freetown would afford a refuge from her particular source of persecution, nor, as to the general circumstances prevailing there in order to verify whether it would not be unduly harsh for the applicant in her personal circumstances to move there. More particularly, it is submitted that there has been a failure to comply with Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection Regulations,) 2006.

3 The applicant who is now aged 30 years is from Sierra Leone. She is a single mother and has a child born in the State in November 2006, shortly after she arrived here where she claimed asylum on the 13^th September, 2006.

4 She claimed to have fled Sierra Leone because of the violence and threats she experienced at the hands of her brother who was a gangster and drug dealer and who threatened to kill her for having had a child out of wedlock.

5 The contested decision of the Tribunal in this case is notable for the fact that it turns, on the Court's reading of it, entirely on the question as to the availability of internal relocation as a solution to the particular source of persecution which the applicant claims. In the analysis of the claim at section 6 of the decision, the Tribunal Member goes to some length in reciting authorities as to the approach to be adopted and the criteria to be applied when considering the possibility of internal relocation in asylum cases. Counsel for the applicant, correctly in the Court's view, acknowledges that one could not find fault with the decision's exposé of the legal criteria as thus set out. Counsel, however, strongly asserts that the Tribunal Member then manifestly failed to apply those criteria either adequately or at all.

6 It is clear that the Tribunal had some country of origin information before it but it appears to have related to the availability of protection in Sierra Leone before local customary courts and in the informal legal sector and was considered to be largely irrelevant by the Tribunal Member. It is submitted that contrary to regulation 7(2) in particular, there was a failure on the part of the Tribunal Member to consult and to have regard to appropriate information as to the "general circumstances" prevailing in the proposed site of relocation, namely Freetown, and to the particular personal circumstances of the applicant as a single mother of a 3 year old child who is asked to relocate from a rural farming area to a large city.

7 It is unnecessary to emphasise that the basis upon which the Court must consider this issue for the purpose of this leave application is whether it raises a substantial ground as to why the decision ought to be quashed.

8 It is clear first of all that the possibility of internal relocation as raised in this case has not been raised in a vacuum or without reference to a proposed destination. Although the short section 13 report of the Commissioner did not depend on...