A West African man has won his High Court challenge to a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal refusing him refugee status.
Denis Valare Taguembou Simo from Cameroon applied for asylum on grounds that he feared persecution in Cameroon because of his political opinions and claimed he had been tortured there.
Mr Justice John Edwards said there did not seem to have been an engagement on the part of the tribunal with the overwhelming evidence from the country of origin that in recent years, torturing political dissenters by the police and security services was both endemic and systematic.
Mr Simo arrived here in October 2003 and applied for asylum based upon his fear of persecution in Cameroon on account of his political opinions.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended to the Minister for Justice that Mr Simo should not be declared a refugee as he had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
Mr Simo appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on March 23rd, 2005. He submitted medical reports including one furnished by Dr John Goode of the Centre for the Care of Survivors of Torture, dated March 19th, 2005.
It was submitted that he had scars which he alleged were caused by the blows of a gun butt. He had a series of parallel strip scars which it was claimed were caused by beatings with flexible hose pipes or another instrument.
His appeal was refused.
In a 31-page report, Mr Justice Edwards said Mr Simo was arrested while participating in demonstrations. He was detained in a police station where he claimed he was regularly tortured and assaulted and not allowed any visit from his family. He was told that if he demonstrated again he would be given 30 years in prison or a death sentence.
The tribunal stated in a report that the scars described in some detail could be related to the history of the various physical abuses which Mr Simo alleged, while other scars were noted to be tribal in origin or to be otherwise unrelated to the alleged abuses.
Mr Justice Edwards said the tribunal decision could not stand.
It had not taken into account the medical evidence of the marks on Mr Simo's back and the features noted on the soles of his feet which were consistent with the physical abuse or torture alleged.
There did not seem to have been any meaningful attempt to assess the applicant's claim of having been tortured in the context of the background information of the country of origin.
The judge said that in the case of conflicting information, it was incumbent on the tribunal to engage in a rational analysis of the conflict and to justify its preferment of one view over another.