Tribunal must reconsider asylum claim made by man convicted of manslaughter, court rules

A man convicted of manslaughter in Ireland has persuaded the High Court to overturn a tribunal’s finding that he is not entitled to refugee status.
In a judgment published on Wednesday, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger held that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal committed a fatal error in failing to provide the man’s legal team with a record from an early stage of his application.
She ordered the tribunal to reconsider his claim afresh.
The man, who cannot be identified due to anonymity protections for asylum seekers, came to Ireland more than a decade ago having married an EU citizen some years earlier.
Some time afterwards, he pleaded guilty in Ireland to killing a compatriot here. He was also convicted of assaulting his now ex-wife, the judge said.
While in prison he applied for international protection, claiming he would face threats to his life from his victim’s family if he returned to their country of origin. He has since been released
The International Protection Office (IPO) determined the threat claimed was credible, but it refused to grant him protection because it found there was sufficient state protection in his home country.
The man appealed to the tribunal, and his solicitor sought the man’s full application file ahead of the appeal hearing. The solicitor, who had not been involved in the early stages of the man’s application, was not furnished with one of two questionnaires the man completed earlier on and did not become aware of its existence until the tribunal hearing.
The appeals tribunal did not find the man to be credible. While accepting the man “may have a subjective belief” his victim’s family might wish to harm him, it found there was an absence of “any credible evidence” of threats made towards his family back home.
It affirmed the IPO’s decision.
In his appeal to the High Court, the man claimed the tribunal breached a duty of co-operation by failing to tell him and his solicitor that there were two completed questionnaires it later relied on to deem he lacked credibility.
The tribunal denied it relied on the undisclosed questionnaire to deem that the man lacks credibility.
Ms Justice Bolger did not accept that no reliance was placed on the questionnaire. She could not rule out that the tribunal’s decision might have been different had the document been disclosed to the man’s solicitor.
She gave a provisional view that the man is entitled to have his legal costs paid.