Clarifying Cross-Examination Obligations in Inquisitorial International Protection Appeals

Introduction

K.J. (a Georgian national) sought refugee or subsidiary protection in Ireland on the basis that, as a gay man, he faced persecution in Georgia. The International Protection Office (IPO) and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) rejected his claim, finding his personal narrative and that of his relationship‐witness (PT) not credible. He challenged that refusal, arguing that the inquisitorial Tribunal was obliged to put adverse credibility concerns directly to PT before disbelieving his testimony. Mr Justice Barr’s May 2025 High Court decision addresses the scope of procedural fairness in inquisitorial asylum appeals, and clarifies when cross‐examination is required.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed K.J.’s judicial review challenge. The court held:

Although the Tribunal’s process is inquisitorial under section 61 of the International Protection Act 2015, it must still afford a fair hearing.
A fair hearing requires the applicant to know the issues in dispute, to present evidence, and to test opposing evidence by cross‐examination where that evidence is produced against him.
There is no absolute duty on an inquisitorial decision‐maker to cross‐examine every witness on every inconsistency or to put every adverse credibility doubt directly to the witness.
K.J. was fully aware that his sexuality and relationship with PT were disputed, was granted an oral hearing, had every opportunity to give evidence, and called PT as a witness who was examined by his own counsel.
The Tribunal properly weighed documentary evidence, the inconsistencies in K.J.’s accounts, and the vagueness of both testimonies, and lawfully concluded they lacked credibility.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Idiakheua v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 150
Established that an inquisitorial tribunal must bring to a party’s attention any matter of substance likely to affect its judgment, so the party can answer it.
RAS Medical Ltd v Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2019] 1 IR 63
Held that where a party asserts that an opponent’s evidence lacks credibility, it is unfair to do so in argument without cross‐examining the witness on that basis.
NN v Minister for Justice [2009] 1 IR 719 (Hedigan J)
Audi alteram partem does not compel a tribunal to debate its conclusions in advance with the parties.
BW v RAT (No. 2) [2015] IEHC 759
Identified six categories of credibility findings, and held the duty to put adverse points to an applicant arises only in limited categories (e.g., contradictions calling for explanation, new information materially changing the picture).
ESO v Chief International Protection Officer [2023] IEHC 197
Confirmed that the duty to afford a fair hearing does not require a tribunal to put every perceived vagueness to the applicant, so long as the applicant had questions reformulated and the opportunity to address concerns.
MA v RAT [2015] IEHC 528
Held that an applicant in a paper‐based appeal cannot complain of unfairness where he had full opportunity to know and address issues raised in earlier stages.

Legal Reasoning

Mr Justice Barr undertook a structured analysis:

Statutory framework: Sections 42(6)–(8) of the 2015 Act authorize an informal, inquisitorial hearing with powers to summon witnesses, admit documents, and conduct examination and cross‐examination. Section 61 imposes an inquisitorial and independent mandate.
Fair hearing principles: Drawing on Idiakheua and audi alteram partem, a tribunal must inform the applicant of issues of concern and allow him to address them. It is not transformed into an adversarial examiner.
Limits on cross‐examination duty: While RAS Medical indicates that credibility attacks usually require cross‐examination, the court clarified it does not create a general mandate to cross‐examine every witness on every doubtful point in an inquisitorial context.
Application to facts: K.J. knew credibility of his sexuality and relationship was disputed from the IPO’s report. An oral hearing was held at his request, and PT was directed to attend. Counsel for K.J. examined PT; the Tribunal member asked the applicant pointed questions. The Tribunal fully considered prior statements, documentary evidence, and inconsistencies.
Credibility conclusion: The Tribunal lawfully found K.J.’s testimony “vague, incoherent and inconsistent,” rejected key details (dates, number of assaults, timeline of relationship), and properly declined to extend benefit of doubt.

Impact

This decision clarifies the scope of procedural fairness in inquisitorial international protection appeals:

It removes uncertainty about whether every inconsistency must be put directly to a witness in an inquisitorial context.
It reaffirms that the core requirements are notice of issues, opportunity to testify, and ability to test adverse evidence by cross‐examination.
Tribunals can now confidently conduct post‐hearing analyses of witness credibility, without feeling compelled to debate every point orally with witnesses.
Future appellants will know that requesting an oral hearing and calling witnesses is sufficient to satisfy fair procedure, even if the Tribunal does not cross‐examine those witnesses at length.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inquisitorial hearing: A process where the decision‐maker actively investigates the facts, rather than simply weighing evidence presented by opposing parties as in an adversarial system.
Audi alteram partem: A fundamental principle of fair procedure meaning “hear the other side,” which requires notice of issues and chance to respond.
Cross‐examination: Formal questioning of an opposing or neutral witness to challenge credibility or uncover inconsistencies.
Benefit of the doubt: If an applicant’s account is credible but not fully proven, the tribunal may resolve uncertainties in the applicant’s favor. Here, the Tribunal refused that benefit due to pervasive inconsistency.

Conclusion

K.J. [Georgia] v International Protection Appeals Tribunal clarifies that while inquisitorial asylum appeals must be fair and transparent, they do not compel decision‐makers to cross‐examine every witness on every doubtful point. Fair procedure is satisfied by giving notice of disputed issues, holding an oral hearing at the applicant’s request, permitting the applicant to testify and call witnesses, and allowing cross‐examination of adverse evidence. This ruling strikes a balance between inquisitorial efficiency and fundamental fairness, guiding future international protection appeals in Ireland.