Ireland - High Court, 28 September 2010, R.M.K. (DRC) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform 2010 IEHC 367

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
28-09-2010
Citation:
2010 IEHC 367
Additional Citation:
2009 No.122 J.R.
Court Name:
High Court (Clark J.)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF version of SummaryPDF version of Summary
Headnote: 

This case concerned the consideration of expert medical evidence by asylum decision makers and the link with the assessment of credibility. The Court found that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed adequately to consider strong medical evidence relating to torture in assessing the overall credibility of the applicant’s refugee claim. The Court also found that it is incumbent upon the asylum decision maker to give reasons for rejecting the contents of medico-legal reports, especially those with a high probative value.

Facts: 

Mr K was a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He came to Ireland in 2003 and sought protection as a refugee. He claimed that he had worked in a senior position at the State controlled national television station in DRC and had authorised the broadcast of television programmes that may have been perceived to be critical of the President, Joseph Kabila. This, he claimed, had led to his arrest, detention and torture for 63 days in the GLM detention centre in Gombe, Kinshasa. The Irish Refugee Applications Commissioner rejected Mr K’s refugee application on a number of grounds. A key finding was that country of origin information indicated that the GLM detention centre had closed in 2001. Mr K appealed this decision to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal with the benefit of a very strong medico- legal report from the specialist service for the victims of torture, SPIRASI, and reports from a consultant psychiatrist and from his GP. The reports indicated that he had scarring and marks on his body ‘highly consistent’ with torture and that he was he suffered from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There was also country of origin information submitted to the Tribunal which indicated that the GLM detention centre may have remained open as an unofficial detention centre in 2003 and/or that it had simply moved to a different building. The appeal was rejected on the basis, essentially, of the same credibility findings made by the Commissioner, who had not had the medical reports or the extra country of origin information.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The appeal decision was quashed by the High Court. The Court found: A) The Refugee Appeals Tribunal Member failed adequately to consider strong medical evidence relating to torture in assessing the overall credibility of the applicant’s refugee claim. B) The negative credibility findings made by the Tribunal Member, which related primarily to minor inconsistencies in Mr K’s narrative, were not so compelling nature so as to outweigh the medical evidence of torture. C) It is incumbent upon the asylum decision maker to give reasons for rejecting the contents of medico-legal reports, especially those with a high probative value. D) The country of origin information which indicated that the GLM was closed in 2001 was contradicted by other reports from Human Rights Groups. The credibility finding on this issue lacked the strength and clarity to outweigh the medical evidence of torture.

Outcome: 

The appeal decision was quashed. The appeal was sent back to the Tribunal for re-consideration by a different Tribunal Member.

Subsequent Proceedings : 

None

Case Law Cited: 

Canada - Vijayarajah v Canada (IMM 4538-98, 12 May 1999)

UK - Mibanga v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 367

UK - R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sadooli [2002] EWHC 2895 Admin 8

UK - R v An Adjudicator and the Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Beqaraj [2002] EWHC 1496 Admin

Ireland - D.V.T.S.v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2008] 3 IR 476

Ireland - High Court, 15 January 2009, T.M.A.A. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Ireland - High Court, 19 May 2009, M.J.P. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal