Facts: The applicant was an Algerian national for international protection. He claimed that his uncle had threated to kill him over a family dispute about property and that, despite reporting it to the police, no action was taken. He submitted that his uncle held a powerful position in a terrorist organisation and had also threatened and attacked his parents. Furthermore, at interview, the applicant claimed that he had been sexually assaulted on one occasion as a child by his uncle, which he referred to as rape later in the application procedure.
The International Protection Office (IPO) refused to grant refugee status or subsidiary protection to the applicant. It did not find the application to be credible on the balance of probability and based on the lack of specificity and corroboration of the claims made. On appeal, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal upheld the decision of the IPO. The applicant sought judicial review in the High Court.
Reasoning: In the High Court, Gearty J. recalled that the essence of decision making is that a decision must be clear. Gearty J. found the Tribunal’s review of the case to be factually inaccurate and failed to clarify whether or not it accepted the applicant’s claim that threats had been made to his and his family’s lives. Moreover, the request for documentation failed to refer to specific elements of the case that needed substantiation.
Section 28(6) of the International Protection Act 2015 provides that if an applicant establishes that they have suffered previous serious harm, that is a serious indication of a real risk of serious harm unless there are good reasons to consider that such harm will not be repeated. It was held that it was not clear if the Tribunal accepted that the applicant faced death threats, and if it did accept them, it failed to consider the rebuttable presumption under section 28(6).
Regarding the applicant’s account of sexual assault, it was found that the Tribunal did not accurately recount the applicant’s case. Gearty J. recalled that incidents of sexual assault are extremely difficult to corroborate, and, moreover, the Tribunal’s reference to the applicant’s failure to raise the issue prior to the interview as a factor that reduced his credibility provides minimal support for the final decision.
Lastly, the Tribunal’s consideration that the lack of specificity in the applicant’s description of his uncle belonging to a terrorist organisation as a negative credibility factor was unexplained and appeared unnecessary.
Decision: Gearty J. held that there was no clear reason given in the Tribunal’s decision as to whether or not the applicant or his family’s lives were threatened by his uncle and what was reported to the police. Given the circumstances, it was therefore decided that the decision must be quashed.
