No error by Refugee Appeals Tribunal in treatment of medical report

Judicial review – national of the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the treatment of medical evidence by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal – applicant claims that the Tribunal Member failed to properly consider a SPIRASI medical report which diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and also failed to explain why that evidence was not given any or appropriate weight - respondents brought a motion to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of the applicant’s lack of candour and good faith - the applicant had been issued with a six-month multi-visit visa for the United Kingdom not long before she claimed asylum in this State – claimed that she feared persecution due to her religion and political opinion – claims that soldiers attempted to rape her and stabbed her in the stomach – she submitted a letter in support of her claim but this letter stated that she had been living abroad - SPIRASI report was put in evidence outlining the applicant’s evidence of how she obtained the scars on her body - Tribunal member rejected her credibility due to problematic inconsistencies - Section 11C of the Refugee Act 1996 imposes on each asylum applicant a duty to cooperate in the investigation of his / her claim - dishonest evidence – no objective findings were made in the SPIRASI report apart from the doctor’s opinion that she suffered PTSD and a depressive disorder - where a SPIRASI report is not capable of corroborating the applicant’s claim in an objective way, it is sufficient to properly consider and note its contents.