Background
A.G., a Georgian national, sought international protection in Ireland. He said that supporters of Georgia’s ruling Georgian Dream Party assaulted him because he supported the United National Movement by putting up posters. The International Protection Office refused refugee and subsidiary-protection declarations.
On appeal, A.G. requested an oral hearing. His solicitor said the IPO had described his account as vague or lacking detail without identifying the missing detail, and that he wished to give evidence under oath. Because Georgia is designated a safe country of origin, the International Protection Act 2015 ordinarily permits IPAT to decide the appeal on the papers unless the interests of justice require an oral hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that IPAT’s decision to refuse an oral hearing and determine the appeal on a papers-only basis was unlawful. Although an applicant is not automatically entitled to an oral hearing, IPAT had to demonstrate that it considered the specific reasons advanced for one in deciding whether the interests of justice required departure from the statutory default.
IPAT’s reasons did not engage with A.G.’s particular submissions about the unspecified alleged deficiencies in his account or his request to give evidence under oath. That procedural decision was the basis on which the substantive appeal, including credibility, was decided; it therefore tainted the entire decision. The Court extended time, quashed IPAT’s 9 June 2024 decision, and remitted the appeal to a different tribunal member.
Key Takeaways
- In accelerated protection appeals, papers-only determination is the statutory default, not an automatic outcome.
- IPAT must give cogent, case-specific reasons showing engagement with an applicant’s request for an oral hearing.
- A defective refusal of an oral hearing can invalidate the subsequent papers-only merits decision.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the High Court’s recent approach in BB: IPAT need not issue a separate advance decision on an oral-hearing request, but its final decision must show that it considered whether the particular appeal required one in the interests of justice.
The Court stressed that it was not deciding A.G. was entitled to an oral hearing. The new tribunal member must make that decision lawfully. The Court’s comments rejecting the remaining credibility and substantive-case grounds were obiter only.