A.G. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a Georgian national, sought international protection in Ireland, claiming that members of the Georgian Dream Party assaulted him because he supported the United National Movement Party by erecting posters. The IPO refused refugee and subsidiary protection declarations, and the IPAT affirmed that refusal on 9 June 2024 after deciding to determine the appeal without an oral hearing. [1][2][3][4][5][6]

The Applicant applied for judicial review and sought certiorari. The application was filed four days outside the statutory 28-day period; the Court extended time because the explanation for the delay was satisfactory and the Respondents did not oppose the extension. [7][8][9]

Following consideration of a related judgment, the Court addressed whether the IPAT had lawfully refused an oral hearing and proceeded on a papers-only basis. [10][11][12]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the IPAT properly considered the Applicant’s request for an oral hearing under s. 43(b) of the International Protection Act 2015, including the reasons advanced in support of that request. [13][14][15]
2. Whether the IPAT’s decision to proceed on the papers unlawfully affected the subsequent substantive assessment, including credibility. [16][17][18][19]
3. On a strictly obiter and hypothetical basis, whether the adverse credibility findings and consideration of the Applicant’s substantive case were legally defective. [20][21][22][23]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

• The IPAT made adverse credibility findings without giving prior notice or adequate clarity about the alleged evidential deficiencies. [24][25]
• An oral hearing was required because the IPO had described the Applicant’s account as vague or lacking detail without identifying the missing detail, and because the Applicant wished to give evidence under oath. [26][27][28][29][30][31]
• The IPAT failed adequately to consider the Applicant’s submissions, including arguments based on medical evidence, country-of-origin information, police practices and the shared investigative burden. [32][33][34][35][36]
• The IPAT’s reasoning was insufficiently individualised and substantially repeated reasoning used in other decisions of the same tribunal member. [37][38][39][40]

Respondents’ Position

• The Respondents maintained that the relevant issues had been expressly considered in the IPAT decision. [41][42]
• They argued that the “detail” and “oath” grounds had not been included in the Notice of Appeal and therefore did not require consideration. [15][43]
• They submitted that the Applicant had not explained attempts to obtain a medical report and had still provided no such report. [44][45]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that, because Georgia was designated a safe country of origin, s. 43(b) created a statutory default of determining the appeal without an oral hearing unless the interests of justice required one. That default did not remove the IPAT’s obligation to consider the Applicant’s request fairly, reasonably and in an individualised manner. [82][83][84][85][62]

The Applicant’s request identified two specific bases: the lack of clarity in the adverse findings and the wish to give evidence under oath. The Court held that these matters required consideration. [13][14][67][86]

The IPAT’s decision accurately summarised the general law and considered whether the papers disclosed a need for an oral hearing. However, from paragraph [1.17] onwards it did not apply those principles to the Applicant’s particular grounds. Its reasoning was materially the same as reasoning used in other decisions and lacked an individualised assessment. [87][88][89][90][39][91][92][93][94]

The Court adopted the principle that the IPAT was not required to issue a separate prior decision or notify the Applicant separately before the substantive decision. Nevertheless, the final decision had to contain cogent reasons showing whether the interests of justice required departure from the statutory default. [47][48][95][96]

The failure to engage with the hearing request was fundamental because the decision not to hold an oral hearing determined the evidential basis for the entire appeal. The later assessment, including credibility, was expressly predicated on that decision and therefore could not be severed from it. [97][98][99][100][101][102][103]

The Court considered the remaining grounds only obiter. On the hypothetical assumption that the papers-only decision had been lawful, it would not have granted relief concerning prior notice of adverse credibility findings, the alleged lack of clarity in those findings, or the alleged failure to consider the substantive claim adequately. [104][22][105][106][80][107]

Holding and Implications

ORDER PROPOSED: TIME EXTENDED; DECISION QUASHED; MATTER REMITTED. The Court held that the IPAT unlawfully failed to engage with the Applicant’s specific reasons for seeking an oral hearing. It proposed extending time, quashing the entire IPAT decision of 9 June 2024 by certiorari, and remitting the matter to a differently constituted tribunal member. [94][108][109][110]

The new tribunal member must decide afresh whether an oral hearing is required; the judgment does not itself determine that an oral hearing must be held. [19][111]

The Applicant was provisionally regarded as presumptively entitled to costs, subject to adjudication if agreement was not reached. The decision directly affects the Applicant’s protection appeal; the remaining credibility conclusions were obiter and no broader new precedent was stated beyond application of the cited principles. [18][112][113]