Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment

M.G. [Georgia] v The International Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)

Smart Summary

Summary of Judgment — Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a national of Georgia, applied for international protection in Ireland alleging past physical and sexual violence by an ex‑partner and ongoing threats between 2015 and 2022. The International Protection Office (IPO) accepted the Applicant's credibility and that the acts amounted to persecution with a Convention nexus but recommended refusal on the basis that state protection in Georgia would be available. The Applicant appealed to Respondent 1 (the Tribunal). The Tribunal conducted the appeal on papers, accepted the core factual elements and the Convention nexus, but concluded, after considering country‑of‑origin information (COI), that effective state protection would be available in Georgia. The Applicant sought judicial review in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's Decision dated 7 August 2024. Judge O'Donnell delivered judgment on 10 March 2026, quashing the Tribunal's Decision on the ground that the Tribunal's treatment of the COI as showing effective state protection was legally flawed, and remitting the appeal to a differently constituted Tribunal member.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Tribunal failed to take account of relevant information / made a material error of fact.
  2. Whether the Tribunal erred in the manner in which it undertook the assessment of state protection and country of origin information.
  3. Whether elements of the Tribunal's assessment were internally inconsistent.
  4. Whether the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The Tribunal treated the Applicant's evidence as if limited to 2006–2015 and failed to address threats and extortion occurring between 2015 and 2022, amounting to a material error or failure to take relevant matters into account.
  • The Tribunal conflated evidence of improvements in Georgia with the existence of effective state protection required by s.31 of the International Protection Act 2015; reliance on selective extracts of COI was impermissible.
  • The Decision contained internal inconsistencies (e.g. stating last abuse in 2015 while accepting post‑2015 threats) and inadequate reasoning on why COI supported a finding of effective protection.
  • Authorities (including CJEU decisions on gender‑based violence) required careful, individualized assessment of such claims and proper engagement with COI.

Respondents' Arguments

  • The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's credibility and threats; any reference to last physical abuse in 2015 must be read in context and did not neglect post‑2015 threats.
  • The Tribunal lawfully weighed COI and reached a reasonable conclusion that Georgia takes reasonable steps and operates an effective, non‑temporary legal system for prosecution and punishment of violent acts.
  • Any error was not material and would not vitiate the Decision; the court should not substitute its view for a Tribunal conclusion reasonably open on the COI.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
WS v. Intervyuirasht organ na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite pri Ministerskia savet C-621/21, ECLI:EU:C:2024:47, 16 January 2024 (W.S.) The CJEU's observations that gender‑based violence may constitute persecution; the Istanbul Convention and CEDAW inform interpretation; assessments must be individual and case‑by‑case using COI. The court considered W.S. when addressing the role of COI and the need for vigilant, individualized assessment of gender‑based violence claims; it noted the Tribunal accepted the factual basis and nexus but still had to apply state protection analysis correctly.
AH and FN v. Bundesamt fur Fremdenwesen und Asyl, cases C-608/22 and C-609/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:828 Reiteration of the CJEU approach to gender‑based violence and applicable interpretative obligations of EU instruments. The court cited the case as reinforcing the principles in W.S. concerning assessment of gender‑based persecution and COI use.
Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie (Political opinions in the host Member State), C-151/22, EU:C:2023:688 Principle that assessment of well‑founded fear must be individual and case‑by‑case, made with vigilance and care. Referenced to support the requirement of individualised factual assessment when considering COI and fear of persecution.
B.C. v. IPAT [2019] IEHC 763 Summary of the four‑part formulation of the s.31 test and emphasis that analysis must focus on the applicant's particular circumstances. The Tribunal relied on B.C.'s four‑question formulation; the court noted the Tribunal correctly identified the test but failed properly to apply it when concluding protection was effective.
Gaidukevich v Georgia (Application No. 38650/18, 15 June 2023) Contextual authority on domestic/gender‑based violence and state obligations (as cited by the Applicant). The Applicant invoked Gaidukevich to highlight dynamics of domestic violence in assessing state protection; the court noted the citation in submissions.
G.K. v IPAT [2022] IEHC 204 Reasons need not be discursive but must engage core claims; decision‑makers must give sufficient explanation to understand reasoning. The court used G.K. to explain the standard for adequacy of reasons and found the Tribunal's reasons were sufficiently clear though that did not resolve correctness.
YY v Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IESC 61 Requirement that affected persons and the court be given sufficient information to understand the decision‑maker's reasoning. Cited as authority for the sufficiency of reasons test; court found Tribunal provided adequate explanation.
Middelkamp v Minister for Justice and Equality [2023] IESC 2 Authority on adequate reasoning and explanation by administrative decision‑makers. Relied upon with YY and G.K. in assessing adequacy of the Tribunal's reasons; court held reasons adequate.
G.K. v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 IR 418 Principle that courts should accept a Tribunal's stated engagement with materials where it indicates consideration. Respondents relied on this line to argue the Tribunal had considered relevant materials; court considered but reached its own view on COI assessment.
D.V.T.S. v. The Minister for Justice [2008] 3 IR 476 Tribunal must recognise conflicting COI and provide rational analysis explaining preference for one source over another. The court reviewed D.V.T.S. to illustrate circumstances where selective treatment of COI and failure to resolve conflicts warranted quashing; used as contrast in assessing the present COI treatment.
D.V.T.S. v. RAT As above: highlighting need to identify and rationally address conflicting COI. Referenced in the opinion as illustrative of errors where conflicting COI was not addressed.
B.A. v. IPAT [2020] IEHC 589 A finding of effective state protection cannot rationally follow from a Tribunal's own negative summary of COI about protection and implementation. The court relied on B.A. to show a Tribunal cannot summarise COI as negative yet reach a positive finding of effective protection; used as a close analogue to the present case.
F.M. and R.M. v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 817 s.31 requires an effective, non‑temporary system of protection; improvements alone do not establish effectiveness. The court applied the principle that a state's "doing its best" is insufficient; the Tribunal had erred by conflating improvements with effectiveness.
X.S. and J.T. v. IPAT and Minister for Justice and Equality [2022] IEHC 100 Tribunal may properly prefer specific, cogent COI (e.g. specialised reports) over more general material; court should not substitute its view absent legal error. Used as a contrast where the Tribunal's focused, reasoned approach to COI was upheld; distinguished from the present case.
W.P.L. and BP v. The Minister for Justice and Equality, The International Protection Appeals Tribunal Ireland and The Attorney General [2024] IEHC 184 Failure to complain to police may be relevant; state protection is "effective" not "perfect"; courts should not interfere with conclusions open to Tribunal. Cited for propositions about considering non‑reporting and the standard of "effective" (not perfect) protection; court referenced it when assessing COI analysis principles.
H.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Anor [2007] IEHC 299 Authority supporting reluctance of courts to interfere with Tribunal findings within the range of lawful conclusions. Referenced among authorities cautioning against substitution of the court's view for that of the Tribunal absent legal error.
E.G. (Albania) v. IPAT and Anor [2019] IEHC 474 Similar authority on deference to Tribunal findings where properly reasoned and open on COI. Used in the discussion on when courts should not interfere with Tribunal conclusions.
E.D. (a minor) v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] 1 IR 325 Authority on judicial review standards and deference to Tribunal findings. Placed alongside other authorities as support for restraint where Tribunal conclusions are open on the material.
R (Atkinson) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] all England Reports (D) 14 Quoted for the proposition that a state's 'doing its incompetent best' does not meet the standard of effective protection. Adopted by Irish authority (Ferriter J.) and relied on to emphasise that improvements alone do not satisfy s.31 requirements.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court framed the challenge as primarily about the Tribunal's appraisal of COI in relation to s.31 of the International Protection Act 2015 and whether the Tribunal lawfully concluded that effective state protection existed in Georgia. The court proceeded as follows:

  1. Confirmed that the Tribunal accepted the Applicant's credibility, the existence of persecution and the Convention nexus; therefore the focus is the state protection analysis.
  2. Assessed adequacy of reasons: applying established authorities the court held the Tribunal's reasons were sufficiently clear to understand why the Decision was made, so this ground failed.
  3. Considered alleged internal inconsistency and material error (reference to last abuse in 2015 vs threats 2015–2022): the court found isolated tension but concluded it did not, by itself, warrant quashing because the Tribunal had otherwise accepted the Applicant's account and framed the relevant concern as domestic violence risk.
  4. Examined how the Tribunal addressed COI: the Tribunal described a "mixed picture" in COI, noted improvements in Georgian law and practice (post‑2017 ratification of the Istanbul Convention) and relied particularly on a 2023 USDOS report describing steps taken yet recurring shortcomings.
  5. Applied precedents (notably D.V.T.S., B.A., F.M. & R.M.): the court explained that a valid Tribunal conclusion on state protection must be reasonably open on a fair reading of all relevant COI and must not equate evidence of improvement with the existence of effective, non‑temporary protection required by s.31.
  6. Found that the Tribunal placed significant emphasis on improvements without proceeding to a proper analysis whether those improvements established effectiveness; the COI overall contained material indicating continuing shortcomings and inadequate responses to gender‑based violence.
  7. Concluded the Tribunal erred (a) by reaching a conclusion that effective state protection was available when that finding did not flow rationally from the COI and (b) by conflating improvements with effectiveness, thereby misdirecting itself as to the s.31 test.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Decision of Respondent 1 (the Tribunal) dated 7 August 2024 is QUASHED insofar as it concluded that effective state protection would be available to the Applicant if returned to Georgia.

Implications:

  • The Applicant's appeal from the IPO is remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal member for reconsideration of state protection consistent with the requirements of s.31 and the court's guidance on COI appraisal.
  • The court rejected the Applicant's challenges based on adequacy of reasons, internal inconsistency and material error insofar as those alone would not justify quashing the Decision.
  • No broader new legal principle was established beyond application of existing authorities; the decision's direct effect is to require fresh Tribunal consideration on the COI/state protection issue.
  • The court indicated a provisional view that the Applicant should have costs assessed in default of agreement and listed the matter for final orders on 19 March 2026.
Click here to read the full judgment
Click here to read the smart summary
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

M.G. [Georgia] v The International Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

M.G. [Georgia] v The International Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)
(Mar 10, 2026)