Ireland - EBS -v- The Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Anor, 13 February 2017
| Country of Decision: | Ireland |
| Court name: | The High Court, O’Regan J. |
| Date of decision: | 13-02-2017 |
| Citation: | [2017] IEHC 71 |
| Additional citation: | High Court Record Number: 2016 965 JR |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Benefit of doubt
Description
The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error, or the weight of evidence. “When statements are not susceptible of proof, even with independent research, if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. The requirement of evidence should thus not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself. Allowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant." |
|
Credibility assessment
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports
Description
“Expert medical report used as evidence relevant to the application for international protection. Where psychological elements are relevant, the medical report should provide information on the nature and degree of mental illness and should assess the applicant's ability to fulfil the requirements normally expected of an applicant in presenting his case. The conclusions of the medical report will determine the examiner's further approach.” |
Headnote:
An application seeking leave for judicial review to quash the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on the basis of the Tribunal failing to take into account relevant information and a misapplication of Regulation 5(2) of S.I. 518 of 2006.
Facts:
The applicant in these proceedings sought leave to appeal the decision issued by the first named respondent (that being the Refugee Appeals Tribunal) dated the 16th November 2016 which resulted in her and her son being denied refugee status. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the applicant could not be afforded the benefit of the doubt in the given circumstances as a result of the negative findings of credibility. The applicant sought refugee status on the basis of sexual abuse, but it was decided by the Tribunal that she did not prove her claim on the balance of probabilities.
Decision & reasoning:
The basis of the applicant’s claim was two-fold;
Failure to take into account relevant information.
The applicant submits that in the course of the proceedings, her medical report from SPIRASI was not given the due weight it deserved. This contention was rejected by the Court. The Court stated that due regard was had for the medical report, however the Tribunal ultimately found that the report failed to adequately identify who/what caused the applicant’s injuries, nor did it identify the exact source of her mental health problems. The repercussions of such findings are that it cannot be said with certainty that the injuries were not caused by persons other than those identified by the applicant. Furthermore, the Court held that it was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to find that notwithstanding the medical report, nevertheless the applicant’s credibility was found wanting. The Court stated that such a finding was rational and reasonable.
A misapplication of the provisions of Reg. 5 (2) of S.I. 518 of 2006
By virtue of Reg 5 (2), the decision maker must assess whether or not past persecution has been accepted. In the event that past persecution is accepted, the question that follows is whether or not there are sufficiently compelling reasons arising out of past persecution alone to warrant a decision that the applicant is eligible to remain in the State. As there was no finding of past persecution by the decision maker in these proceedings, in this instance Reg 5(2) was simply not engaged.
The application was therefore denied on booth grounds.
Outcome:
Application Denied.
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Ireland - The European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I No. 518 of 2006) |