SENIOR MEMBERS of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, including former DPP Eamonn Barnes and a former minister, Michael O'Kennedy SC, were so concerned about the running of the tribunal that they were preparing to challenge its chairman in court, The Irish Times has learned. Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Editor, reports
Mr Barnes, along with Mr O'Kennedy and barrister Donal Egan, sought a correction of a statement made by the chairman of the tribunal, John Ryan BL, to the Supreme Court, along with changes in the way the tribunal operated.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal, set up in 2000, hears appeals from those refused refugee status at an initial hearing.
In a case known as the Nyembo case, the Supreme Court had cleared the way for the High Court to examine records and statistics showing the outcome of the cases dealt with by the various members of the tribunal. The case was settled by the tribunal before the relevant documents were discovered, which meant that the three tribunal members could not appear before the High Court.
In the case, three asylum-seekers had asked that their appeals be reassigned from one particular member, Jim Nicholson, because of "perceived bias" on his part. It was stated during the proceedings that he had rejected the many hundreds of appeals he had heard between 2002 and 2004.
Mr Ryan, as chairman, allocates cases to tribunal members.
Giving the decision of the Supreme Court, Mrs Justice Denham recalled that the statement of opposition filed by the chairman of the tribunal had stated: "The record of the second-named respondent [ Mr Nicholson] is not at variance with other members of the first-named respondent [ the tribunal]".
"However," she commented, "there is no evidence in the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents vindicating [this] assertion."
This statement gave rise to the action by the three senior tribunal members.
"The record of the second-named respondent is markedly at variance with those of the three members of the tribunal on whose instructions this correspondence is written," Mr Adrian Eames, their solicitor, wrote. "It is also significantly at variance with the records of a substantial number of other members of the tribunal . . . It [the statement of opposition] simply cannot remain unchallenged by a significant number of members of the tribunal."
On this basis they were seeking to have this paragraph of the statement of opposition withdrawn before the High Court considered a discovery application in relation to the case. Otherwise they wanted to participate separately in the case as notice parties in order to challenge the statement.
The latest version of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill provides that the chairperson of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which is to be abolished, will become the chairperson of its replacement body, the Protection Review Tribunal.
In response to written questions concerning these issues the tribunal issued a statement stating: "The chairman has replied to the letter to which you refer and does not propose to make any further comment."