K.A. (Ghana) v The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, born in 1975, claimed persecution in his country of origin due to refusal of a traditional chieftaincy. He arrived in The State on 29th June 2015 and applied for asylum. The initial application was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and the Plaintiff appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Following the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015, the application was referred to the International Protection Office (IPO). On 25th August 2017, the IPO rejected both the asylum and subsidiary protection claims and notified the Plaintiff under section 49 of the 2015 Act of refusal of permission to remain. An appeal to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal was rejected on 8th January 2018. Subsequent submissions under section 49 were made on 31st January 2018, with a review conducted on 16th May 2018. A deportation order was issued on 5th June 2018 and notified on 14th June 2018. Leave to proceed with judicial review was granted on 9th July 2018, with the primary relief sought being certiorari of the deportation order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Minister properly addressed the risk of refoulement under section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015 in the decision leading to the deportation order.
2. Whether the Minister adopted the findings of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal regarding the Plaintiff's credibility.
3. How the Minister's reference to country of origin information should be interpreted in relation to the risk of refoulement—whether it pertains to the Plaintiff as a failed asylum seeker or based on the Plaintiff's own account, if accepted as true.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified ambiguity in the Minister's reasoning regarding the risk of refoulement under section 50 of the 2015 Act. The Minister’s statement that "the country of origin information does not indicate that the applicant would be at risk of refoulement" was unclear as to whether this conclusion was based on a rejection of the Plaintiff’s credibility or on an assessment of country material even if the Plaintiff’s account were true. The court acknowledged that the ambiguity was not a fundamental or irremediable defect warranting quashing of the decision. Instead, the court exercised its jurisdiction to direct the Minister to provide further reasons clarifying (a) whether the Minister adopted the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s credibility, and (b) how the reference to country material should be construed—whether in relation to the Plaintiff as a failed asylum seeker or based on the Plaintiff’s own account if accepted as correct. This approach was aimed at ensuring procedural fairness and clarity in the decision-making process.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DIRECT FURTHER REASONS from the Minister regarding the assessment of refoulement risk under section 49(9) of the 2015 Act. The proceedings were adjourned to allow the Minister to provide these reasons and for the Plaintiff to consider them.

The direct effect of this decision is to require clarification of the Minister’s reasoning before the deportation order can be fully upheld or challenged. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision reinforces the principle that administrative decisions must be accompanied by clear and adequate reasoning, particularly on issues as critical as refoulement risk in asylum and deportation contexts.