You are here

Home › Serious harm › Non-state actors/agents of persecution › Previous persecution › Ireland ›

EDAL case summaries

Ireland - High Court, 25 June 2012, W.A. [DRC] v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General, [2012] IEHC 251

Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Congo (DRC)
Keywords: Individual assessment, Credibility assessment, Previous persecution, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Protection, Refugee sur place, Subsidiary Protection, Individual threat, Political Opinion, Serious harm, Non-refoulement, Procedural guarantees

This case concerned the assessment and reason given that the Applicant had not been subjected to “serious harm” in the past, in circumstances where the decision was unclear as to whether the finding was to the effect that his account was not believed, or whether, if believed, the harm was not inflicted by persons who were "actors of serious harm". The Court also considered the definition of “actors of serious harm.” Thirdly, the Court considered whether the decision-maker ignored the specific claim made in the application that returned asylum seekers face a risk of detention,...
Date: 25-06-2012

Ireland - High Court, 1 March 2012, J.T.M. v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General,[2012] IEHC 99

Country of Decision: Ireland
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Previous persecution, Actor of persecution or serious harm, Non-state actors/agents of persecution, Protection, Subsidiary Protection, Gender Based Persecution, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Serious harm, Torture, More favourable provisions

This was the substantive hearing of a case in which leave to seek judicial review of a subsidiary protection decision was granted on the basis that (a) it was arguably erroneous to conclude that because State protection was available in respect of the actions of non-State agents who inflicted serious injury on the Applicant, the said injury could not amount to "serious harm;" and (b) The decision failed to consider whether, arising out of the previous harm suffered by the Applicant, compelling reasons existed to warrant a determination that she was eligible for subsidiary protection. The...
Date: 01-03-2012

Filter by case summary type

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision