A High Court judge has criticised a "gratuitously insulting" remark by a Refugee Appeals Tribunal member about a Cameroonian woman's religious convictions.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar said RAT member Emma Toal, when considering the woman's claim she fled after refusing to marry a local chief in Cameroon because she was Catholic, had remarked "one has to question the strenghth of these religious convictions given that she had two children out of wedlock".
This was “an extraordinary comment to make int the context of the early part of the 21st century”, the judge said. Those remarks were “gratuitously insulting” to the woman, “unhelpful and unnecessary”.
The remarks were not, however, sufficient to impair the legal validity of Ms Toal’s decision dismissing the woman’s appeal, he ruled. That decision was based on Ms Toal’s findings concerning the woman’s credibility and it was not the role of the court to express its views on credibility or substitute its own view for that of the RAT member.
He was giving judgment on an appeal by the woman, a mother of two in her thirties who came to Ireland in late 2008.
The Refugee Applications Commissioner had recommended she be refused refugee status. The woman’s appeal was heard by the RAT in November 2009 and she was informed of its rejection in an undated letter stamped May 2010. It was “hard to believe” it had taken more than six months to decide the matter, Mr Justice Eagar said.
In her application, the woman, who has a university diploma, said her mother had died some time ago and her father, a “notable” in Cameroon, died in 2008. She claimed she was told at his funeral she must become the wife of a chief and ordered to drink a glass of human blood. She claimed she refused both orders and was told drastic measures would be taken if she did not obey.
Among other claims, she alleged she was held for two days without food and water, collapsed and was taken to hospital where she was guarded by the chief’s men. She claims she ultimately escaped and walked 100km to the police who told her they could not protect her. She was later told the chief would be able to find her anywhere in Cameroon and she left the country, she claimed.
She also said she has not seen her children since her father’s funeral and they are now living with an aunt.
The woman claimed she had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of membership of a particular social group, race and nationality.
In considering her application, the RAT identified several issues of credibility and made several findings in that regard, including that her account of escaping from the hospital and walking 100km to the police in a weakened state, all the while remaining undetected, was implausible.
Mr Justice Eagar said it was unhelpful the woman’s evidence in chief and under cross-examination was not summarised by the RAT and the court believed an outline of such evidence should be set out in every case.
Ms Toal had found various credibility issues concerning the woman affected the subjective “well-foudned fear” element of her claim. While country of origin information showed women in general may face abuse and discrimination in Cameroon, the RAT had not accepted the woman had any fears in that regard and had said counryy of origin information had to be looked at in the context of individual cases.
The RAT had also said that, if she was incorrect on credibility, it was possible to relocate the woman in Cameroon, which has a population of 18.5 million, the judge noted. He was satisfed the procees by which the RAT member had reached her conclusion on credibility was legally sound and there was therefore no need to consider the issue of relocation.
