Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant, a national of Country A born in 1979, said she fled Country A in May 2021 because of ongoing domestic abuse by her husband, went into hiding in Country B, was found there and threatened again, and later arrived in Ireland on 25 May 2022 to seek international protection. [Para 20]
At her section 35 interview, the Applicant described heavy alcohol use by her husband, repeated physical and psychological abuse, three hospitalisations, and a police response that led only to short periods of imprisonment without conviction, after which the abuse allegedly worsened. [Para 21][Para 22][Para 23]
The IPO accepted the Applicant's credibility but refused international protection on the basis that state protection was available in Country A. [Para 26] The Tribunal upheld that refusal, accepting that the Applicant faced a real risk of persecution but concluding that state protection was available and therefore refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection. [Para 27]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal unlawfully failed to conduct a sufficiently individualised assessment of the Applicant's circumstances when deciding that state protection would be available if she returned to Country A. [Para 17][Para 102]
- Whether the Tribunal properly applied the statutory and case-law test for state protection under section 31 of the International Protection Act 2015. [Para 47][Para 58][Para 64][Para 82]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Applicant argued that the Tribunal did not genuinely engage with her personal circumstances, especially her history of ineffective police protection, the absence of any charge or conviction against her husband, and the fact that he allegedly continued abusing her after brief detention. [Para 102]
- She also argued that the Tribunal misunderstood its duty by treating the state-protection question as a hypothetical assessment of whether her husband would likely offend again, rather than as an assessment of her actual individual circumstances and access to protection. [Para 102]
Respondents' Arguments
- The Respondents submitted that the Tribunal had in fact understood the Applicant's individual circumstances, as shown by its earlier factual summary, and had then applied the four-question test in light of the relevant country-of-origin information. [Para 103]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| C-621/21 WS |
International protection requires an assessment of the applicant's individual circumstances, in the context of the country of origin, to determine whether she may reasonably fear persecution. [Para 36] |
Used to support the proposition that the assessment must be individualised and that state protection forms part of that analysis. [Para 36] |
| Joined Cases C-608/22 & C-609/22 AH & FN v. Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl (Afghan women) |
The competent authority must carry out a case-by-case assessment with vigilance and care, taking account of the applicant's background, gender, age, and other personal circumstances. [Para 38][Para 39][Para 40][Para 43][Para 45] |
Cited as reinforcing the duty to adapt the assessment of facts and evidence to the specific circumstances of each application. [Para 45] |
| BC v IPAT [2019] IEHC 763 |
Section 31 yields four questions on state protection: reasonable steps, effective legal system, non-temporary protection, and access by the particular applicant. [Para 58][Para 59][Para 60][Para 61][Para 62][Para 63] |
The Tribunal expressly adopted this framework, and the Court used it as the starting point for reviewing the Tribunal's analysis. [Para 64][Para 82] |
| BD v IPAT [2025] IESC 38 |
Fear of persecution and state protection are inextricably linked and must be assessed by reference to each other. [Para 65] |
Used to underline that the state-protection inquiry could not be divorced from the Applicant's fear of persecution. [Para 65] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the correct legal test under section 31 is objective, but only when applied by reference to the Applicant's individual circumstances. [Para 105][Para 107]
Although the Tribunal correctly identified the governing framework and had earlier summarised the Applicant's factual account, the Court found that it did not then apply that account when analysing state protection. [Para 108]
In particular, the Tribunal failed to engage with the Applicant's case that years of serious domestic abuse, the absence of any conviction, and the limited police response meant that earlier intervention had not amounted to effective protection. [Para 108][Para 109]
The Court also considered that the Tribunal's focus on rejecting any "hypothetical subjective assessment" showed a misunderstanding of the task, because the real issue was whether the Applicant's actual circumstances demonstrated a lack of effective access to protection. [Para 106][Para 111]
For that reason, the Court concluded that the state-protection analysis was not carried out with the level of care required by law and that judicial review intervention was justified. [Para 112]
Holding and Implications
GRANTED. The Court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the appeal to a different Tribunal for a fresh assessment, including the state-protection question. [Para 113][Para 115]
The Court did not decide whether state protection is ultimately available to the Applicant; that matter was left for the new Tribunal. [Para 113]