G.K. [Ghana, Medical Evidence, Memory] v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant arrived in The State from The State and applied for international protection in October 2022. The International Protection Office refused the application on credibility grounds; the Applicant appealed. Medical reports were submitted in November 2023 and November 2024 (including a report from Company A and treatment notes from Attorney O'Connell). The Respondents refused the appeal following a video-link hearing in February 2025. Judge Gearty delivered judgment on 22 April 2026 quashing the Tribunal decision and remitting the matter for redetermination.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal adequately weighed and meaningfully engaged with the medical evidence (clinical diagnoses of PTSD) when assessing the Applicant's credibility.
2. Whether the Tribunal gave sufficient reasons for rejecting medical reports that attach higher probative value to clinical findings, particularly in light of identified memory impairments.
3. Whether the balance of credibility evidence was so strongly against the Applicant that it justified discounting the medical evidence without fuller engagement.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The medical evidence (two clinical diagnoses of PTSD: Company A report and Attorney O'Connell's report) provided objective corroboration of his account of repeated homophobic assaults.
• The Tribunal discounted the medical evidence without sufficient explanation and failed to address documented memory impairments that affect recall and disclosure.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents submitted that the medical evidence had been considered in full and, if not engaged with in depth, that was because the overall balance of evidence was overwhelmingly against the Applicant's credibility.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Gearty analysed the Tribunal's approach against established authorities (A.S. and M.M.). The court set out the nine factors from M.M. and identified that the key dispute concerned the last three factors: whether clinical findings amount to objective corroboration, whether reasons for rejecting such reports were adequately provided, and whether overwhelming adverse credibility findings could justify less fulsome reasoning.

The court reviewed the procedural history and the medical evidence: a Company A report by Attorney O'Sullivan diagnosing PTSD with clinical findings consistent with assault, and treatment notes/diagnosis of PTSD from Attorney O'Connell after six months of treatment. Company A's report specifically recorded memory difficulties and cited the Istanbul Protocol on variability of memory after trauma. The Tribunal treated the physical injury findings as "consistent" (the lowest probative level) and regarded both PTSD diagnoses as heavily reliant on the Applicant's account, noting one clinician was not an approved Company A-authorised doctor.

Judge Gearty found the Tribunal had referred to the medical documents but had discounted them in their entirety without sufficient explanation and without meaningfully engaging the documented memory impairments. The court emphasised that even if a diagnosis is not binding, the Tribunal must address higher-probative clinical findings fully, or expressly state that overwhelming credibility inconsistencies justify not doing so. The Tribunal's brief dismissal of Attorney O'Connell's diagnosis because she was not an approved doctor was held to be insufficient, particularly given the detailed engagement and consistency between experts and the absence of alternative explanations for the Applicant's condition.

Holding and Implications

QUASHED; REMITTED FOR REDETERMINATION

Holding: The decision of the Tribunal was quashed. The matter is remitted to a different Tribunal member for a fresh determination that meaningfully engages with the medical evidence and addresses the documented memory issues.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Respondents must reassess the appeal, explicitly considering the weight of the PTSD diagnoses and setting out reasons if those diagnoses are rejected. No new precedent was created beyond applying the existing M.M./A.S. principles. The Applicant was provisionally awarded costs; the Respondents may apply to the Registrar within 14 days if they object.

Appearances

Attorney Conlon and Attorney O'Halloran appeared for the Applicant instructed by Company D. Attorney Brennan appeared for the Respondents instructed by Company E.