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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> O. (O.) v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2007] IEHC 439 (11 December 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H439.html Cite as: [2007] IEHC 439 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Neutral Citation No: [2007] IEHC 439
THE HIGH COURT
[2006 No. 695 JR]
BETWEEN
O. O.
PLAINTIFF
AND
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
DEFENDANT
Ex Tempore Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on the 11th day of December, 2007
This is an application for leave to apply and I must be satisfied that there are substantial grounds to apply. The grounds advanced come, essentially, under three headings as advanced today here in court. Firstly, the country of origin information was not put to the applicant; secondly, the country of origin information was used selectively; and thirdly, that the findings on credibility or the attitude to credibility was not brought to the applicant's attention so he could take issue with it or with aspects of it.
Dealing with the first matter, in my view it is quite simply incorrect to suggest that the country of origin information was not put to him. He was questioned about the beating up incident and reporting to the police, he was asked about nongovernmental organisations' help, he was asked about relocation, he was asked about legal assistance, he was asked about the Sun article, about gay clubs, and in the course of the interview it seemed to me that the applicant had every opportunity, which he took, to describe the dangers he felt that he faced. The fact that the report itself was not specifically put before him appears to me to be of little significance in this case. Nothing in a careful reading of it suggests a different scenario than was described by the applicant in relation to Nigeria, in my view. The conclusion that he can expect to fear societal isolation and discrimination may not be expressed in such strong terms as the applicant might like, but that is very far removed from being sufficient ground for leave to apply for judicial review.
In relation to selectivity, I think that it should not normally be a ground for applying for judicial review. It seems to me, that barring some egregious selectivity this is something that is more a matter for the appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. In any event, I don't even agree that the report was selectively used. It seems to me that the report which I read very carefully was a balanced account of the problems that the Nigerian state has in coming to terms with an inherent homophobia that exists in that country. It indicated certain dangers, certain fears, certain hopes, and I think was a very balanced report, as one would expect from a report of a joint UK and Danish project. The decision of the RAC seemed to me to draw fair and balanced conclusions from this report. The fact that the report was January 2005 also does not impress me greatly. Whilst I think it is important that country of origin information be kept up to date for matters that are dealt with such as here, a report dated January 2005 is in my view reasonably up to date unless some clear evidence is produced to the contrary.
As to credibility, evidence was given by him in relation to the Sun article, in relation to his expired licence and his journey to Ireland and specifically his arrival here. These details, and notably his arrival in Ireland, I think certainly cast grave doubts on his reliability and credibility. Nonetheless, on the most important aspect as to whether he was the person photographed in the Sun article, he was given the benefit of the doubt and the case was examined on the basis that he was that person and therefore likely to be at risk. Credibility, therefore, is not, in my view, a ground upon which the decision was reached and nothing arises therefrom, in my view, to ground the grant of leave to apply. The other matters that are referred to in the grounds that are set out are largely factual matters that I think are covered by what I have said already in relation to findings concerning the licence and don't go any further than the third heading of credibility and I don't need to deal with them any further. For those reasons, I am refusing leave to apply for judicial review in this case.
Approved: Hedigan J.
