Adverse credibility findings in asylum refusal were logical and clearly stated

Judicial review – telescoped hearing – Sierra Leonean national challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse her refugee status - rebels invaded her village and the people she believed were her parents were killed - she was taken to the bush by rebels, beaten and raped - she was in the bush for many months when she states she was then taken by another rebel group - forced to become the wife of a rebel - she had three children with this man, and after the birth of each of these children they were taken from her - she tried to escape on two occasions from this man but she was caught - afraid of her adopted husband as he had told her that if he caught her he would kill her - could not move elsewhere in Sierra Leone as she had no family or relatives and she had no one to look after her - police were afraid of her husband – claimed people hate her as they believed that she does the same thing as her husband’s rebel group - scar on the back of her heel and on her left hand but no medical reports – unable to say which rebel group the man belonged to – lived with her adopted husband for 9 years - adverse credibility findings - having regard to the credibility issues that arose, she could not be given the benefit of the doubt - state protection - absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary, a state is to be presumed capable of protecting its citizens - internal relocation – argued that the credibility findings were based upon gut feeling and conjecture – argued that the state protection and internal relocation findings were unlawful – argued that the findings on state protection and internal relocation could be severed - the role of the judicial review refugee judge in determining whether or not a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal should be sustained or set aside - the manner in which evidence going to credibility ought to be treated and the review of the conclusions and credibility to be carried out.