T. G. v McHugh Acting as Refugee Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Charleton
• Judgment Date: 18 April 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 174
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 April 2007

[2007] IEHC 174

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 4 J.R./2006]

G (T) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (MCHUGH)

JUDICIAL REVIEW

IN THE MATTER OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT, 2000,

THE REFUGEE ACT, 1996, AS AMENDED, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN/

T. G.

APPLICANT

AND

DAVID McHUGH ACTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

FIRST NOTICE PARTY

AND

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SECOND NOTICE PARTY

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000

REFUGEE ACT 1996

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S2

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(1)

OSAYANDE & LOBE v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2003 1 IR 1 2003 31 7267

Z v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2002 2 IR 135 2002 2 ILRM 215 2003 49 12190

O'KEEFE v BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39

KEEGAN, STATE v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 632

IMAFU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP HIGH COURT PEART 9.12.2005 2005/31/6380 2005 IEHC 416

DA SILVEIRA v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (HURLEY) & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP PEART 9.7.2004 2004/15/3102 2004 IEHC 436

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S11(b)

Abstract:

Immigration - Assylum - Practice and procedure - Judicial review - Factors to be considered - Issue as to credibility-Refugee Act,, 1996, s11B - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000, s.5(2)

the applicant is a Cameroon national and claimed that as a result of taking part in demonstrations at university he was arrested, detained and tortured. The applicant seeks leave for judicial review and argued that mistakes were made by the respondents which should be the subject of scrutiny. In assessing credibility, the account given by the applicant to the first named respondent was held to be incredible.

Held by Mr Justice Charleton in directing that the application be refused found there was no evidence that the balance between immigration policy of Ireland and the rights of the applicant were not considered by the Minister.

Reporter:E.C.

1 1. The applicant was born on 23rd June, 1971, and is a Cameroon national. He claims to be a member of a tribe. He claims that the Cameroon is separated into English-speaking and French-speaking regions, in addition to those who predominantly speak African languages, and that in consequence of his attachment to a movement seeking greater support for English-speaking persons he has been persecuted and is likely to be again subject to similar treatment. He told the Refugee Appeals Tribunal that he took part in a demonstration on behalf of this organisation while he was at university. In consequence, he claims to have been arrested, detained and tortured. Following his release, he claims that he was no longer allowed to continue with his university course but instead took up small business in a small way as a printer. When the authorities discovered that he had photocopied some flyers on behalf of this organisation, he was again, he said, arrested and tortured. The applicant left his country in June, 2003 stopping over in France for a couple of minutes, as he says, probably for an aircraft change, and then arrived in Dublin.

2 2. Ireland is obliged, pursuant to international convention, to give asylum to those who are refugees. Under s. 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996, as amended, this, in effect, means a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, has gone outside the country of his nationality and is unable to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who is fearful for good reason of seeking the protection of his country.

3 3. The applicant now seeks leave to apply for judicial review pursuant to s. 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000. On arrival in Ireland he was interviewed on applying for refugee status. That application was refused and he therefore appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, who gave a decision against him on 12th October, 2005.

4 4. An application under s. 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 has to be made within fourteen days of the date on which the applicant was notified of the relevant decision. As set out in s. 5(1), the High Court may, for good and sufficient reason, extend the period within which the application can be made. Leave to commence a judicial review of many of the decisions related to claims for refugee status cannot be granted unless the High Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is invalid or ought to be quashed. In that context, the grounds advanced must be reasonable, arguable and weighty and must not be merely trivial or tenuous. The determination of the High Court under this section is final. No appeal lies to the Supreme Court except where the High Court certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance which makes it desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken.

5 5. The grounds advanced on behalf of an applicant must be placed on a firm legal foundation. Here, it is argued that the mistakes allegedly made by...