Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Refugee Appeals Tribunal Decisions

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 15 May 2014

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Ceisteanna (190)

Seamus Healy

Ceist:

190. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality in view of the recent remarks by Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark in her recent written explanation of a High Court judicial review, which quashed a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and which included the comment: "Sometimes the Court is called upon to review a decision which is so unfair and irrational and contains so many errors that judicial review seems an inadequate remedy to redress the wrong perpetrated on an applicant. This is such a case."; the support of Amnesty International for the applicant; the accountability there is for members of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal; the means, if any, that exist for the censure or removal of RAT members where blatant abuse of process take place; in view of the defiance by a second RAT member of the High Court judicial review in this case in a second hearing and the decision of the chair of the RAT to hold a third hearing, if she intends to make any inquiry into such an inexplicable and potentially costly waste of time and legal expense, not to mention the distress caused to the applicant in question; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21943/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

The case mentioned by the Deputy was the subject of an ex-tempore judgment of the High Court in January 2013 with the written judgment delivered in January 2014. As the Deputy will be aware the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is a statutory independent body established under the Refugee Act, 1996 to decide appeals against negative recommendations in respect of applications for refugee status issued by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice and Equality in relation to whether or not refugee status should be granted.

In accordance with the Refugee Act 1996, Tribunal members are appointed by the Minister and shall hold office on a part time basis for a term of three years on terms and conditions determined by the Minister and agreed with members by way of signed contract. The contract stipulates that a member of the Tribunal may be removed from office by the Minister for stated reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to complete agreed business workloads within time frames agreed with the Chairperson; failure to furnish reports and decisions within a time frame set by the Chairperson or breach of any of the other terms and conditions of the contract.

The management of the Tribunal is the responsibility of the Chairperson who under the Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended) is required “to ensure that the business of the Tribunal is managed efficiently and that the business assigned to each division is disposed of as expeditiously as may be consistent with fairness and natural justice ”. The Chairperson is statutorily responsible for assigning the workload to individual members.

The Deputy may be aware that in August, 2013 a new Chairperson of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal was appointed following a selection process run in conjunction with the Public Appointments Service. Since taking up his position, I understand that the Chairperson has begun a major review of Tribunal practices, procedures and guidelines. In September, 2013 the Assigning Policy of the Tribunal was published, which details how cases are assigned amongst the various members of the Tribunal. The new Chairperson has also established a Tribunal Users Group which comprises of the Chairperson and representatives nominated by the Law Society and the Bar Council. I am informed that the group will meet on a regular basis to discuss matters of interest and/or concern to users of the Tribunal. I am advised that the Group has considered draft procedural guidelines which will set out the practice and procedure relating to how appeals are dealt with by the Tribunal. Other guidelines are also in preparation, including a comprehensive guideline for dealing with child applicants.

Following on from the appointment of new Tribunal members and the expansion of the Tribunal's remit to the area of subsidiary protection under the European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013, which my predecessor signed into law in November 2013, a comprehensive training programme has been undertaken by the Tribunal, to ensure that the new members are fully equipped to discharge their duties to the highest professional standards.

I am informed that as part of this training programme, the Tribunal has been working closely with the UNHCR in developing a new decision template designed to enhance the robustness of the process and to assist Members in their difficult task. This process has been greatly enhanced by the participation, via the UNHCR, of an internationally recognised former Canadian refugee law judge who has been central to the training provided.

The Tribunal has further advised me that it is actively managing its judicial review caseload by early intervention and negotiating to keep costs to a minimum. The Tribunal continues to work closely with the CSSO to achieve the best possible outcomes to such legal challenges.

The Chairperson in his strategy statement for 2014-2017 commits the Tribunal "to consider and decide refugee, subsidiary protection and Dublin Regulation appeals to the highest professional standards". He has also committed to an ambitious reform programme to achieve the Tribunal's strategic goals and to undertaking a review of Tribunal policy on public access to Tribunal documents, including the Tribunal's database of previous decisions.

I am confident that the developments which I have outlined will have a major impact on the performance and perception of the Tribunal as they are integrated into its ethos and practices in the coming year.

With regard to the Deputy's assertions in relation to the "defiance by a second RAT member ...", I am advised by the Chairperson of the Tribunal, that when a case is remitted to the Tribunal for a re-hearing the member assigned the case is not made aware of the previous judicial review, as to do so could prejudice an applicant. The legal advisors for the applicant may bring attention to any previous judgement if they wish to do so. However, the hearing is a de novo hearing and the member concerned must be satisfied that the applicant satisfies the legal test for asylum. The Chairman has further advised that in the case concerned, the written judgment of Harding Clarke J., referred to by the Deputy was not available to the second member who heard the case, as it was only issued in January 2014.

It must be remembered that members of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal are independent in the exercise of their functions, and it is a matter for the Tribunal to consider whether a person is a refugee or not. The High Court, on a judicial review, considers the process by which the decision was reached and does not enter into the merits of the case.

Finally, the Deputy might wish to know that the applicant in question was granted refugee status this month on foot of his appeal to the Tribunal.

Barr
Roinn