Adverse credibility findings in application for asylum were not based on correct findings of fact

Judicial review – national from the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status – claimed that she feared rape, torture, aggression and inhuman treatment – claimed that she was the mistress of an opposition politician who was murdered by State forces – she had a position in the women’s organisation to mobilise and organise women - she went to a march and was arrested by the military - suggested to her that the politician had given her a document which she denied - she was beaten and threatened with a knife - she was raped and she was threatened not to go to the march – at another march, the military arrived and they were beaten - taken to jail and was raped again by guards - spent three and half months in prison – guard helped her escape – fled to Ireland – appeared to the Tribunal that she had made no effort to find the children - well-founded fear – Convention nexus - SPIRASI report - Tribunal refused her application on grounds of adverse credibility - assessment of credibility – no subjective credible fear of persecution – argued that the Tribunal failed to assess the medical evidence lawfully – argued that the Tribunal failed to assess her credibility lawfully – credibility findings were based on speculation, the Tribunal members own world view and were related to peripheral matters – argued that there was no rational basis for the adverse finding in relation to her demeanour - all country of origin information that is used by either the Refugee Applications Commissioner, by the applicant and by the Tribunal should be before the Court - not permissible to place reliance "on what one firmly believes is a correct instinct or gut feeling that the truth is not being told" - conclusions must be based on correct findings of fact - travel into the State – Tribunal did not seem to have given any weight to the findings of the SPIRASI report.