W.P.L & Anor -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors


Olga Shajaku

The Applicants argued variously that the Impugned Tribunal Decision was unlawful or unfair, contending it was contrary to various sections of the law and irrational. Here’s a summary of their main arguments and the Tribunal’s responses:

(i) The Tribunal accepted the Applicants’ claim of being victims of crime in South Africa but concluded it didn’t reach the level of persecution required for refugee status. The Tribunal has the latitude to assess persecution, and in this case, it found the incidents didn’t meet the legal threshold.

(ii) The Applicants argued the Tribunal minimized the risk due to their race and membership in a particular social group. However, the Tribunal found their evidence insufficient to establish an elevated risk deserving of refugee status.

(iii) The Applicants claimed an enhanced risk due to their white ethnicity, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating they didn’t establish a nexus between their ethnicity and the risk of serious harm.

(iv) The Applicants contended the Tribunal failed to properly assess the risk of future harm based on their past experiences. However, the Tribunal found their arguments unconvincing.

(v) The Applicants argued unfairness and inconsistency in the Tribunal’s approach to previous decisions. However, the Tribunal maintained its discretion in considering previous decisions and found no inconsistency.

(vi) Finally, the Applicants challenged the Tribunal’s assessment of State Protection, claiming it was ineffective. The Tribunal, however, found that reasonable steps were being taken by the South African authorities to address crime and provide protection, thus denying the need for international protection.

Ultimately, the Tribunal’s decision was deemed lawful and appropriate, considering the evidence and legal standards.

For the full case https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/a7fccb7d-4c5e-4b24-a298-f2cabbf44dfd/462ddb1e-7a84-43ff-a4f3-cb870623909a/2024_IEHC_184.pdf/pdf


Contact Us