The Refugee Applications Commissioner found against the applicant and applied Section 13(6)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996, i.e. she found that there was no or a minimal basis for the application with the result that the applicant did not have an oral hearing. On appeal, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a refugee, but did not appear to find against his credibility. The applicant contended that he was a former member of the Mungiki and had provided significant country of origin information that tended to suggest that former members of the Mungiki were persecuted. He challenged the Tribunal’s decision for failing to consider relevant matters.
The Court granted leave, finding that in the absence of a clear finding of lack of credibility, a Court exercising a review role must exercise its role on the basis that the applicant’s evidence is correct and that where there is ambiguity as to the extent of a finding of lack of credibility, an applicant is entitled to the benefit of such ambiguity. The Court further held that it was arguable that the decision maker was required to address the substance of the applicant’s case.
