Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial review arises from a Statement of Grounds dated 8 September 2025 in which the Applicant sought to quash a decision of Respondent A dated 8 August 2025 (issued 12 August 2025) confirming an earlier refusal by Entity C dated 29 February 2024 to grant the Applicant international protection. The Applicant appealed the initial refusal on 11 March 2024 and submitted written submissions in February 2025. The Applicant alleged two xenophobic attacks in Country A and asserted that the second attack was assisted by members of the police who, the Applicant contends, disclosed his whereabouts to Organization A (an anti-migrant group). The Applicant is a citizen of Country A by nationality but was born in Country B on 21 November 1988.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Respondent A's analysis of state protection in Country A was unlawful and/or inadequately reasoned, including non-compliance with section 31 of the International Protection Act 2015 and Article 7 of Directive 2004/83/EC.
2. Whether Respondent A gave sufficient consideration to the practical effectiveness of state protection and whether undue weight was attributed to the existence of anti-corruption or investigatory bodies in Country A.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• Respondent A's Decision did not clearly state whether the allegation of police corruption was accepted or rejected; the Decision is unclear on this central factual issue.
• The assessment of state protection was unlawful and/or inadequately reasoned because it failed to engage with the requirements of section 31 of the 2015 Act and Article 7 of Directive 2004/83/EC, particularly as to the practical effectiveness of protection.
• COI relied upon was insufficient to establish that state protection in Country A met the statutory threshold.

Respondents' Arguments

• Respondent A did not need to expressly accept the police-corruption allegation in the Decision because the Decision referred to the allegation as "alleged" and then addressed investigatory bodies available in Country A.
• Entity C's prior decision (29 February 2024) and the COI appended to it were relied upon by Respondent A to support the conclusion that adequate state protection was available.
• Respondent A argued it examined submissions and gave reasons why the Applicant had not established an absence of state protection.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted the factual findings in the Decision that the Applicant is a national of Country A and suffered two xenophobic attacks and that there was a real chance of further harm if returned. The Court identified a central ambiguity in the Decision as to whether Respondent A accepted the Applicant's allegation of police corruption. The Decision referred to "alleged" police corruption but then proceeded to list investigatory bodies; the Court held that if Respondent A did not accept the corruption allegation, there was no need to engage with how the Applicant might avoid future persecution on that basis.

The Court examined the specific passages relied on by Respondent A and Entity C's COI extracts (including material attributed to Entity D and Entity E). It found the COI quoted highlighted that governmental responses to xenophobic incidents were "sporadic," "often slow and inadequate," and that prosecutions were not consistently effective. The Court held Respondent A did not engage with that material in a manner that explained how it satisfied the s.31 threshold of effective, non-temporary protection in practical terms. There was no meaningful discussion of the statutory threshold (s.31) or of how the COI extracts demonstrated "proper state protections were and are available."

Relying on the principles in the cited authority (Case A v Entity A and Entity B), the Court concluded that COI extracts alone, without analysis linking them to the s.31 requirement, were insufficient to support the Decision's conclusion as to state protection.

Holding and Implications

ORDER OF CERTIORARI GRANTED

Holding: The Court granted certiorari quashing Respondent A's decision of 8 August 2025 (issued 12 August 2025) on the grounds set out in paragraph E(2) of the Applicant's Statement of Grounds.

Implications: The direct effect is that the impugned Decision is quashed. The judgment does not purport to set a new substantive precedent beyond applying the principles in the cited authority; it requires Respondent A to re-assess the matter in a manner compliant with section 31 of the 2015 Act and the principles identified in the cited authority. On costs, the Court's provisional view is that the Applicant should be entitled to costs; Respondents may make written submissions (up to 1,000 words) within ten days, and the Applicant may reply (up to 1,000 words) if such submissions are filed.

Judge O'Regan delivered the judgment on 14 April 2026.