The applicant’s case was deemed to be manifestly unfounded. His application for judicial review was unsuccessful in the High Court, and he appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The applicant claimed that the accelerated procedure for asylum applications that were considered manifestly unfounded was unfair because there was no provision for an oral hearing.
The High Court granted the applicant leave to seek judicial review on the ground that the lack of an oral hearing on appeal rendered the appeal decision unsound for breach of natural and constitutional justice. Ultimately, however, the Court refused to grant the relief sought, finding that the lack of an oral hearing did not breach the requirements of natural and constitutional justice and that the applicant had been afforded an ample opportunity to present his case. The Court referred to the refugee definition and stated that the phrase “well-founded fear of being persecuted” means that the fear must be well founded and that this implied that an applicant’s frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation and that, therefore, the phrase contained both a subjective and an objective element. The court stated that the objective element requires an evaluation of conditions in an applicant’s country. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision.
