Ireland - High Court, 11 May 2010, S and Another v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 177
Machine-found from the cited source, not yet confirmed by a human. Open the source before relying on it.
What was at stake
EDAL summary. This concerned a claim of persecution as conscientious objector and the use of previous decisions. The first applicant claimed that he faced persecution in Israel because he was a conscientious object...
What the court decided
The High Court held that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal failed to provide fair procedures by not making a previous decision of substantial importance and materiality available to the applicants' legal representatives for comment before determining their appeals. This obligation arises when the Tribunal proposes to make a finding on a new legal issue that might surprise the appellant's advisors, particularly when no oral hearing takes place, as such a decision could supply a factual basis for conclusions on country of origin conditions.
Categories
This is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.