SN (Uganda) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2011 IEHC 451, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Hearing of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing subsidiary protection
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common Basic Principles, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Persecution, Persecution (Actors of), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Refugee
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c1455e40-b6d4-4dd4-b529-4a9ef046d6ad/2011_IEHC_451_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been granted leave to seek judicial review on one ground, namely whether the Minister’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant subsidiary protection contravened Regulations 5(1) and (2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) by failing to consider and state a conclusion on the claim made by the applicant that … Read More

Principles:
  1. In applying Regulation 5(2) of the European Communities (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006) the decision maker must:
    • ask himself whether an applicant suffered persecution or serious harm in the past. If the answer to this question is yes, the decision maker is required;
    • to ask whether there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm would not be repeated if the applicant was returned to her country of origin. If the answer to that question is yes, the decision maker is still required;
    • to apply the counter exception of Regulation 5(2) and ask whether there are compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution or serious harm alone such as might warrant a determination that the applicant is eligible for protection.
  2. Where a decision maker takes the view that there are many other possible causes for an applicant’s injuries, the decision maker is still obliged to address the question of whether the applicant did in fact suffer serious harm in the sense of the Regulations, namely, whether the injuries were inflicted by State actors in the manner alleged.
  3. If a decision maker is satisfied that there is no reason for considering that the previous harm would be repeated, he is still obliged to consider whether the historic serious harm may be such that the fact of its occurrence alone gives rise to compelling reasons for recognising eligibility.
Go Back