Ms Justice Bolger handed down a judgement in the High Court on 6 January 2025 on a judicial review application made by S (the “Applicant”), against the International Appeals Tribunal, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General.
The Applicant, a citizen of Botswana, arrived in Ireland and applied for international protection the following day. The Applicant’s protection claim arose from a land dispute with a Mr. M that began when she and her husband-built houses on land they had purchased. Mr. M claimed ownership of the land and began demanding that the Applicant and her family vacate it. Despite seeking legal advice, the Applicant claimed that Mr. M continued to harass her family. The Applicant recounted specific incidents, including broken car windows and threatening text messages from Mr. M, and she and her family left their home and relocated. The Applicant claimed the harassment persisted after which she continued to feel unsafe. She eventually left Botswana and sought protection in Ireland.
The International Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) acknowledged the land dispute but rejected the Applicant’s claims of harassment and threats, primarily due to perceived inconsistencies in her account and insufficient evidence to support her allegations. The Applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the IPATs decision was irrational, unfair, and based on flawed reasoning.
The Tribunal’s key findings expressed concerns about the Applicant’s vague and inconsistent evidence regarding the alleged harassment and specifically noted that the Applicant had failed to provide evidence of the text messages from Mr. M and did not mention them during her earlier interview, provided insufficient detail about the alleged threats and harassment, did not explain why Mr. M targeted her and not her husband, and, finally, she could not reconcile why formal legal action did not commence until several months after threats allegedly began.
The Tribunal concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, it was not satisfied that the applicant was subjected to harassment or threats as claimed. The Applicant challenged the Tribunal’s findings and invoked the doctrine of severability, arguing that even if some findings were valid, others were flawed, and the flawed elements should be severed from the overall decision.
The High Court of Ireland dismissed the Applicant’s challenge, applying the high bar test for irrationality. It emphasised that credibility assessments must be read as a whole rather than in separate parts. The Court noted that multiple negative credibility indicators were identified by the Tribunal, not just a single issue. The Court found that the Tribunal were entitled to question what they had, and their concerns had been legitimate.
Ultimately, the Court found no irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Tribunal’s decision-making process. Since none of the findings were irrational, there was no need to consider the application of the doctrine of severability.
The case underscores the high threshold for establishing irrationality in judicial review of international protection decisions. The Court reaffirmed that decision-makers are entitled to assess credibility based on the overall impression of evidence and are not obligated to refer to every piece of evidence in detail, provided the reasoning is clear and comprehensible.
Click here to read the full decision.