Mr Justice Owens delivered judgment in the High Court on 4 March 2025 regarding judicial review applications made by P.P. and V.S. (the “Applicants”) against the International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice (the “Respondents”).
The applications for judicial review concerned a decision made by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). The Applicants, both Georgian nationals, applied for international protection in Ireland in February 2022. The Tribunal refused to recommend international protection declarations for the Applicants, concluding that they were not refugees, were not entitled to subsidiary protection, and that there were not substantial grounds for believing that if they returned to Georgia there would be a real risk that they would suffer harm.
The judgment outlines the relevant legislation. Section 33 of the International Protection Act 2015 states that a designated safe country of origin is considered safe for an applicant unless serious grounds are submitted which suggest otherwise. Under Section 72 of the International Protection Act 2015, Georgia is considered a designated safe country.
The Applicants stated in their initial questionnaire that they obtained a loan from a private money lender and were unable to pay back money owed due to the high level of interest. The loan was then sold to a criminal group of extortionists who demanded large amounts of money.
The Applicants stated that they were threatened and assaulted by members of the criminal group. In the questionnaire, one of the Applicants was asked why they did not submit a report to the police. The Applicant stated that he did not report the issue to the police as he and his family were threatened with physical violence by the group if they reported the issue. Both Applicants stated in their questionnaires that they believed the police had connections with the criminal group.
The Court found that the Tribunal was obliged to explain why it decided that the Applicants' claims regarding police collusion were not considered serious grounds. It also found that the Tribunal did not provide a reasoned conclusion on that issue.
The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and the Applicants' international protection declarations were remitted for reconsideration. The Applicants were provisionally awarded the costs of the applications, including any reserved costs and the costs of legal submissions.
Click here to read the full judgment.