Ireland - High Court, 3 November 2009, D.T. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 482
| Country of Decision: | Ireland |
| Country of applicant: | Sierra Leone |
| Court name: | High Court |
| Date of decision: | 03-11-2009 |
| Citation: | [2009] IEHC 482 |
| Additional citation: | 2007 No. 1626 J.R. |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
|
Non-state actors/agents of persecution
Description
People or entities responsible for acts or threats of persecution, which are not under the control of the government, and which may give rise to refugee status if they are facilitated, encouraged, or tolerated by the government, or if the government is unable or unwilling to provide effective protection against them. |
|
Persecution (acts of)
Description
"Human rights abuses or other serious harm, often, but not always, with a systematic or repetitive element. Per Article 9 of the Qualification Directive, acts of persecution for the purposes of refugee status must: (a) be acts sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the ECHR; or (b) be an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in (a). This may, inter alia, take the form of: acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence; legal, administrative, police and/or judicial measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory manner; prosecution or punishment, which is disproportionate or discriminatory; denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses in Article 12(2). " |
|
Refugee Status
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
Headnote:
This case concerned the assessment of the option of internal relocation within Sierra Leone in the context of a threat from a family member. The Court found that, provided that regard has been had to relevant country of origin information, there is no obligation on the decision-maker under Article 8.2 of the Qualification Directive to seek out specific information on general economic and social conditions in a proposed site of re-location in the absence of any specific objection on that basis being put forward by the asylum seeker.
Facts:
The applicant was from Sierra Leone and sought asylum in Ireland on the basis of violence and threats she had experienced at the hands of her brother who was a gangster and had threatened to kill her for having a child out of wedlock. Asylum was refused on the basis that internal relocation to the city of Freetown was possible. The decision-maker had some general country of origin available, but precise information as to conditions in Freetown. It was argued that the decision-maker had acted contrary to Article 8 of the Qualification Directive in that no precise or appropriate information was available as to the general circumstances in the proposed place of relocation and that, in particular, to the personal circumstances of the applicant as a single mother of a three year old child who it was proposed would relocate from a rural area to a large city, contrary to Article 8.2.
Decision & reasoning:
The primary consideration in examining the prospective site of relocation within a country of origin is to ensure that the particular source of persecution will not exist in that place or be likely to be encountered there once again. That is most frequently the primary consideration in cases where the threat is of a general or public character. In such cases it may be necessary by recourse to appropriate country of origin information to confirm that such a threat is genuinely absent from the proposed area of relocation. The position is different however where the specific risk identified is a private or domestic one, such as the threat from a family member. Country of origin information is of little relevance in assessing such a risk. It falls to the decision-maker to make the assessment by reference to an objective and common sense appraisal of the reality of the risk.
The decision-maker had regard to various characteristics and advantages of Freetown in terms of size, facilities and, if needed, the availability of protection. In these circumstances, there is no obligation on the decision-maker under Article 8.2 of the Qualification Directive to seek out specific information on general economic and social conditions in a location such as Freetown in the absence of any specific objection on that basis being put forward by the asylum seeker or at least in the absence of some particular circumstance of general knowledge which puts the decision-maker on inquiry as regards prevailing conditions in that location.
Outcome:
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.