Introduction

The Judgment in A.S. & Ors v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 89) presents an in‐depth discussion on the methods employed by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) when assessing factual and credibility issues in international protection claims. In this case, the applicants – Nigerian nationals (including minors who are suing through their mother as next friend) – sought a review of the IPAT’s decision that refused them a refugee or subsidiary protection declaration. The central disputes revolve around allegations of procedural unfairness during the oral hearing on 24 November 2022 and, in particular, the credibility assessment of the first named applicant’s account. The decision was delivered by Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley on 13 February 2025.

The core issues in this case include the manner in which the IPAT conducted its hearing using an inquisitorial approach, specifically the practice of “putting” propositions to the applicant, and the subsequent adverse credibility findings. The applicants argued that this approach was unfair, irrational, and improper, alleging that it effectively amounted to a form of proxy cross-examination conducted via an interpreter. The Judgment carefully considers these points, relying on established case law and principles concerning the assessment of credibility in the context of international protection proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the judicial review application, upholding the IPAT’s decision. The IPAT had meticulously conducted its inquisitorial hearing in compliance with section 42(6) of the International Protection Act 2015. Its report, dated 4 January 2023, provided a detailed assessment of the evidence and rationalized its adverse findings on credibility. In brief:

• The applicant’s narrative regarding her husband’s involvement in an anti-SARS protest (the Lekki Toll Gate event) was accepted in part, but critical aspects—especially concerning her evidence of limited contact with her husband and conflicting statements about the existence of video footage—were found to be vague, inconsistent, and unsubstantiated.
• The Tribunal’s inquiry, which involved “putting” assertions to the first named applicant (often through an interpreter), was determined to fit within the scope of an inquisitorial process that requires a joint effort to uncover the truth.
• The adverse credibility findings, which led to the conclusion that the applicant’s claim was not supported by a coherent and reliable factual account, were upheld on the balance of probabilities.
• On this basis, the IPAT affirmed the International Protection Officer’s recommendation that the applicant and her dependents be refused both a refugee declaration and a subsidiary protection declaration.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment explicitly cites important precedents which frame the analytical structure for assessing credibility:

• I.R. v The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & The R.A.T. [2009] IEHC 353: This case elucidated the principle that the High Court, on judicial review, must not substitute its own view for that of the administrative decision-maker. It underscored that credibility findings must arise from a “full picture” analysis of the evidence.
• Idiakheua v The Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 150: Though decided on a leave application, this precedent confirmed that an inquisitorial body can actively direct its questioning and invite explanations to uncover material truths. The Judgment relied on this authority to affirm that the IPAT’s “putting to” method does not exceed its inquisitorial mandate.
• K. (Zimbabwe) v IPAT & Minister for Justice & Equality [2023] IEHC 6: The observations in this decision reinforced the need for a coherent, interpolative assessment of credibility that takes into account both the substance of evidence and its cumulative impact.

Legal Reasoning

At the heart of the IPAT’s legal reasoning was the obligation to assess credibility by reference to both subjective and objective factors. The Tribunal was required to evaluate whether the applicant’s account of the events – particularly those relating to her husband’s alleged involvement at the Lekki Toll Gate protest and the subsequent conflicting accounts concerning video evidence – was credible.

The IPAT’s reasoning, as discussed in paragraphs [4.1] to [4.9] of the report, was grounded in the following rationales:

• It considered the entire evidence record, including documentary evidence, oral submissions, and the applicant’s demeanor during testimony.
• It maintained that any adverse finding on credibility must be based on correct facts supported by cogent rationale rather than conjectural or isolated inconsistencies.
• The Tribunal's inquisitorial approach, which included questioning via an interpreter, was determined to be acceptable provided it advanced a joint search for truth that did not undermine fairness.
• Finally, the IPAT made allowances for possible translation issues, yet it cautiously rejected explanations that the applicant advanced for her inconsistent statements.

Mr. Justice Bradley noted that the cumulative impression given by the applicant’s evidence and its evolution over time led to the conclusion that her narrative was largely “vague and evasive.” The court, however, reiterated that the IPAT was acting within its discretion by applying the appropriate legal standards and factual scrutiny as required under the International Protection Act 2015.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for future cases in the realm of international protection:

• Clarification of Inquisitorial Practices: The decision reinforces that adjudicative bodies such as the IPAT have the authority to conduct a comprehensive inquisitorial exercise—including actively directing lines of questioning—without breaching fairness, provided that the process is transparent and evidence-based.
• Standard for Credibility Assessments: The ruling reiterates that credibility assessments must emerge from an overall, holistic analysis of a claimant’s evidence. Future appellants may find it challenging to contest findings on credibility unless they can show clear and systemic procedural irregularities or legal errors.
• Procedural Assurance in Protection Claims: By referencing settled case law and emphasizing the obligation not to judicially second-guess administrative discretion on factual matters, the judgment offers guidance on the limits of judicial review in refugee cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts and terminologies in this judgment warrant simplification for clarity:

• Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial Process: Unlike an adversarial system where two opposing sides present their cases, an inquisitorial system involves the decision-maker actively investigating the facts. In this case, the IPAT’s “putting to” approach constitutes a method of eliciting further evidence rather than an indication of bias.
• Credibility Assessment: This involves evaluating whether an applicant’s account is believable based on consistency, detail, and corroborative evidence. The Court held that a determination of non-credibility must be founded on “correct facts” and a balanced view of all evidence, not merely on isolated inconsistencies.
• Proxy Cross-Examination Through an Interpreter: The term “putting to” refers to the practice by which the Tribunal used specific questions, sometimes rephrasing issues already raised, to clarify the applicant’s position. The judgment held that while this may seem reminiscent of cross-examination, it is acceptable within an inquisitorial framework so long as it advances the search for accuracy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the High Court’s Judgment in A.S. & Ors v IPAT underscores the importance of adhering to established procedural protocols in international protection appeals. It confirms that while the credibility assessment remains a matter largely within the discretion of administrative bodies, such decisions must be founded on a comprehensive, fact-based analysis. The decision not only upholds the IPAT’s methodologies but also reaffirms key legal principles from cases such as I.R. v The Minister for Justice [2009] and Idiakheua v The Minister for Justice [2005].

The takeaway from the Judgment is clear: international protection claimants must present a coherent and consistent narrative, and administrative adjudicators are empowered, within an inquisitorial system, to scrutinize evidence rigorously. The ruling provides a robust precedent on the limits of judicial review in refusals based on credibility findings, thereby shaping future approaches to the assessment of refugee and subsidiary protection applications.