Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Minister should have considered country of origin information before assessing credibility
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants judicial review of decision refusing subsidiary protection, on the grounds that there was a failure in the Minister for Justice’s reasoning process in not considering the country of origin information first before assessing credibility in light of this information.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – challenge to the decisions refusing subsidiary protection - delay in processing the application - refusal not invalid as a result of delay - failure to hold that the applicant had already been subject to serious harm - credibility was rejected - if the applicants’ account is incredible and incorrect it means that no serious harm was inflicted – argued that the Minister for Justice failed to consider all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application for protection - would make no difference – country material is to be considered first, followed then by an assessment of credibility in the light of that material – conclusion unnecessarily blunt – failure in Minister’s reasoning process – judicial review granted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
