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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants judicial review of the decision refusing Georgian national international protection, on the grounds that: in failing to give the applicant an opportunity to explain the absence of her husband from her appeal hearing, the member of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal failed to accord fair procedures to her.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review - Georgian national challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to refuse her international protection – second judicial review – factual background – subjected to sexual assault or rape – reluctant to inform her husband - procedural background - a valid reason why her application would be treated entirely separately from that of her husband namely to avoid him learning of the assault - findings made by the tribunal member cannot be supported in law - the tribunal member proceeded on the basis of questions that had been put to the applicant by the presenting officer, which questions were themselves based on a false premise: namely, that her husband had not mentioned the October 2017 attack in his application for international protection; when it was the applicant’s case, that she had told him of the attack on the very night that it had happened; albeit that she had not mentioned the sexual nature of the attack - court must consider the reasonableness and fairness of the question that had been posed to the applicant, wherein it had been put to her that her husband had not mentioned the October 2017 attack at all - finding was made in breach of the applicant’s right to fair procedures - based on a totally false premise - premise that was contained in the question that was put to her, was factually incorrect - unfair for a decisionmaker to make an adverse finding of credibility against an applicant on the basis of her answer to a question that was posed on an incorrect basis – credibility findings unlawful - importance of fairly putting all matters on which a credibility decision may be based - in failing to give the applicant an opportunity to explain the absence of her husband from her appeal hearing, the tribunal member failed to accord fair procedures to the applicant on the hearing of the appeal – 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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.