Summary of Judgment — Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant is a 38‑year‑old national of Nigeria who, while driving a truck on 1 February 2011, was involved in a collision in which two boys on a power bike died. The Applicant brought the boys to hospital. One boy was the son of a prominent politician and the other the son of a powerful businessman. The Applicant was thereafter targeted by the boys' families: his truck was burned out, he was attacked and stabbed, his family home was burned, and his mother was injured. The police who attended stated the boys were intoxicated and that the Applicant was not at fault; a statement was taken from the Applicant when he was in hospital. The Applicant left his local area, ultimately leaving Nigeria in October 2011 and arriving in Ireland in 2021 where he applied for international protection.

The International Protection Office ("Company C") rejected the Applicant's claim on 17 November 2023. The Applicant appealed to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal ("Company A"). An oral hearing was held on 3 December 2024. The Tribunal gave a decision on 6 March 2025 rejecting the appeal: it found the Applicant credible but concluded there was no Convention nexus and that state protection and/or internal relocation were available. The Applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The judgment in these proceedings was delivered by Judge Ferriter on 11 June 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal unlawfully reversed the statutory presumption in s.28(6) of the International Protection Act 2015.
2. Whether the Tribunal failed properly to engage with and evaluate the Applicant's evidence and COI as to why state protection would not be effective in his particular circumstances (i.e. persecution by politically powerful non‑state actors).
3. Whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test in relation to internal relocation.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Tribunal wrongly reversed the onus under s.28(6) by treating the presumption as displaced unless the Applicant showed reasons the past persecution would be repeated.
• The Tribunal failed to assess state protection in the Applicant's individual circumstances, in particular failing to consider that his persecutors were politically powerful and thus likely above the law in Nigeria.
• The Tribunal applied an insufficient and cursory approach to internal relocation.

Respondents' Arguments

• Any error in paragraph 35 of the Tribunal's decision was overtaken by paragraph 36, which proceeded to assess state protection on the basis that a future risk had been established.
• The Tribunal considered the COI and the Applicant's case and legitimately found, on the evidence (including that the Applicant reported the assault to police and did not follow up), that state protection was available.
• The Tribunal's overall conclusion was that state protection was available and that, accordingly, the presumption under s.28(6) did not entitle the Applicant to protection.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in three analytical stages.

1. On s.28(6) presumption: The Court held that paragraph 35 of the Tribunal's decision mischaracterised the statutory presumption by assessing whether there were "good reasons to consider that the harm would be repeated" in a way that reversed the prescribed burden. The Tribunal wrongly conflated the risk assessment with the separate question of state protection and improperly relied on lapse of time and potential internal relocation in that context.
2. On state protection: Despite the error in paragraph 35, the Court concluded the Tribunal went on to consider state protection on the correct premise (i.e. that a future risk had been established) and therefore the Applicant was not in substance deprived of the benefit of s.28(6). The dispositive question was whether the Tribunal's state protection analysis was legally valid. The Court found the Tribunal erred materially: it assessed the effectiveness of Nigeria's police in general terms and did not apply the COI to the Applicant's specific case — namely that the Applicant's potential persecutors were politically powerful and likely above the law. The Tribunal's reasoning (paras 37–39) did not engage with that central factual premise, and its summary of issues omitted any reference to the political power of the aggressors. That omission infected the state protection assessment and constituted legal error because the statutory test requires an individualized assessment of access to state protection.
3. On internal relocation: Because the Court found the state protection analysis flawed and ordered quashing, it did not need to determine internal relocation. The Court observed, however, that the Tribunal's brief, passing reference to internal relocation in paragraph 35 would not satisfy the detailed analysis required by authority (two‑stage test and high threshold) if relocation is to be relied upon on rehearing.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The Tribunal's decision is quashed by way of certiorari and the matter is remitted to a new Tribunal for fresh determination.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the Tribunal's 6 March 2025 decision is set aside and the Applicant's international protection claims must be re‑assessed by a differently constituted Tribunal.
• The new Tribunal must address the Applicant's case as actually pleaded, in particular the assertion that the alleged persecutors are politically powerful and that, in light of COI showing corruption and shortcomings in Nigeria's police, state protection would not be effective in the Applicant's individual circumstances.
• The Court expressed no view on the ultimate merits; whether the Applicant will succeed is a matter for the new Tribunal based on the evidence and submissions before it. The decision does not purport to establish new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities to the facts of this case.