BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Applicant was born in Karachi on 6th September, 1975 and came to Ireland through an agent, arriving on 20th August, 1999. He received a formal questionnaire, on which certain information is contained. The copy of it in exhibit RS2 is unsigned and no reply is made to queries 15-22, 38-56, 58-60 and in another form certain questions are unanswered 1-26, 28-56, 58-60, 62, 65, 70, 74, 77, 82 and 83. It appears therefrom, i.e. exhibit RS2 (Q67) that the Applicants journey went from Karachi - Peshawar, Afghanistan, Moscow to Ireland; he apparently stayed in “Afghanistan while travelling” (Q72). The Applicants response to question 84 is as follows:-

2. The second or other questionnaire at question 84 refers to being in receipt of death threats. Subsequent to the Applicant signing the questionnaires, he attended at interview the record of which is dated 9th April, 2001, this is exhibited MI-1 and pages 4, 6, 16 & 17 contain pertinent information. (Lest there be any doubt in the matter the mere fact that I chose these pages as pertinent does not mean that the other pages are irrelevant or wanting in worth but they are the pages on which the arguments in Court centred about.) The reports (under what would now be considered Section 11 & 13 of the Refugee Act, 1996 as amended) were prepared and the application came to be considered under the Hope-Hanlon procedures. The Applicant was informed that his application was considered by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) whose recommendation intended for forwarding to the Minister for Justice and Law Reform (hereinafter referred to as “the Minister”) was that the claim for refugee status was manifestly unfounded. No criticism was then made of the information in the documentation and the manner in which that information was considered by the Commissioner. The debate in Court centred around two matters (1) the credibility of the Applicant, (2) the question as to whether serious consequences - death threats - had been made against the Applicant. The argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant was that the mere fact that some matter was not referred to in the interview did not mean that the answers given in the questionnaire were incorrect. Furthermore, it is stated that the reports prepared subsequent to the questionnaire and interview distorted the information therein contained to such an extent as to not be a true reflection of the information supplied by the Applicant and further that the member of the Tribunal failed to read the interview notes or to appreciate the fact that the alleged distortion of the information in the reports had occurred as between the information given by the Applicant and the manner in which the recommendation was formulated which led to a decision or recommendation by the Commissioner that the Applicant’s case was manifestly unfounded. The expression “manifestly unfounded” is defined in Section 12(4) of the Refugee Act, 1996 as amended, it does not mean that because a Court could or may take a view that would differ from that of the Tribunal that the decision made by the Tribunal that the application was manifestly unfounded is incorrect. The Commissioner’s decision by way of recommendation was appealed (within time) to the Refugee Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). It is of importance to note that the Applicant had the advice for this purpose of a solicitor Mr. John F. Carroll of the firm of Carroll & Kelly. The papers contained a letter from Mr. Carroll to the Tribunal dated 7th June, 2001 (post the receipt of the documents exhibited at exhibit B in Mr. Rowley’s Affidavit sworn on 27th November, 2001); he refers thrice to the question of an oral hearing in this way:-

3. Exhibit RS3 includes a form of appeal signed by both the Applicant and the solicitor dated the 11th June, 2001. The form provides at paragraph 3 for grounds of appeal and indicates what is required by way of appeal from the Applicant and specifically seeks -

4. The letter that preceded these two documents was a letter dated 1st June, 2001 to the Applicant to the Commissioner indicating that:-

5. In the light of the criticisms of the Interview and the distortions or inaccuracies stated to have been made by the Commissioner and the reports made for or by him which it appeared centred on creditability, the Applicant emphasised the information contained in page 17 of the interview notes where the queries were as follows:-

6. It was contended for the Applicant that it was clear from this that the agent only travelled as far as Peshawar and there could be no possible confusion in the mind of the Commissioner that the inquiry touched on the immigration control in Ireland (i.e. at Shannon Airport). Altogether from the relevance of whether in fact any of the ports of call in a refugee case are of significance, it seems to me that the inquiry is directed as to whether in fact the immigration control in the country into which the refugee or asylum seeker is seeking to enter is the subject of the inquiry.

7. If there was an ambiguity in this regard, this ambiguity could and should have been as clear to the solicitor before any appeal was made to the Tribunal and the matter drawn to the attention of the Tribunal at the time the appeal was lodged with the Tribunal. The other main ground of criticism of the task undertaken by the Commissioner and by the Tribunal was that they failed to have regard to, or proper regard for, the replies made in the two questionnaire at question 84 which are as follows:-

8. Pages 6 to 11 inclusive of the interview notes touch upon this topic. The member of the Tribunal who considered the matter, refers specifically to both the death threats and the serious consequences specifically in the context of replies to question 84. If the criticisms of the interview and the reports of the Commissioner in the papers before the Court and the submissions of Counsel were valid it seems incomprehensible that these points of controversy not addressed in the letter of appeal. Understanding the tone of protest in the letter of the solicitor of the 7th June, 2001 there is an inferential acceptance that the appeal will be on documents submitted only, the Applicant had at all relevant times the benefit of legal advice. The decision of the Supreme Court on the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999 (2000 2 IR 360 at 395) states as follows:-

9. Furthermore by way of assistance in considering these matters the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status as issued by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva in January, 1992 at page 47 states as follows:-

10. Two forms of relief are sought in this case, one is an extension of time within which to bring an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review and the other is an application seeking leave. They were heard conjointly and I am satisfied that the Applicant is for all practicable purposes entitled to an extension of time within which to appeal the decision of the Tribunal but is not entitled to any such extension of time referable to the decision or decisions or recommendations of the Commissioner and I so hold.

11. The Applicant made his election to proceed to appeal the decisions of the Commissioner to the Tribunal. If dissatisfied with the earlier decisions and having the benefit of legal advice at the time he could and should have challenged them if he considered them in any way improper or warranted challenge by way of Judicial Review. Notwithstanding the fact that a Court may be inclined to a view that would differ from the deciding body or authority in cases of this nature a Court must be ever mindful that it must not act as an appeal court but concern itself with a review of the decision in suit. I adopt the decision of Kelly J. in Sekou Camare v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Refugee Appeals Authority, Ireland and the Attorney General (Unreported 26th July, 2000) to the effect that:-

12. In the instant case Counsel on behalf of the Applicant stated that the credibility issue was of so great importance that the Applicant should have been afforded an oral hearing. If the true position in this regard was quite clear to the Applicant and to the Applicant’s solicitor before the Tribunal embarked upon any part of its decision making and it was imperative that any question or questions or credibility that required to be resolved were done so by clear challenging to any of the alleged distortions or explanations of ambiguity as existing in the papers up to that date. The words of Finnegan J. in Valeri Zgnat’ev v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Unreported 29th March, 2001) seem opposite:-

13. In the instant case such emphasis on ambiguities or distortions of reportage as are alleged in the course of this hearing to have occurred in the documentation, in particular that of the Commissioner, were capable of being satisfactorily addressed in writing at the time of the appeal, but no attempt was made to do that. Finnegan J. further stated:-

14. I am mindful in making this decision of the decision of the Supreme Court in Steffen v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors . (Unreported 13th November, 2001.) In my judgment this case is clearly distinguishable therefrom. I treated the application for leave as the application in the fullest sense as I had given counsel every opportunity to present the case in full to the Court. In the event the application neither good nor substantial grounds have been established by the Applicant, and if they could be said to exist were not substantiated.

15. I therefore refuse the application.