Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> U. & Anor -v- Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 283 (16 June 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2009/H283.html
Cite as: [2009] IEHC 283
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: U. & Anor -v- Refugee Appeals Tribunal Composition of Court: Judgment by: Clark J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] IEHC 283 THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW 2007 1166 JR
N. A. U. AND T. A. APPLICANTS AND
THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (BEN GARVEY) AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM RESPONDENTS
1. The applicants seek leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT), dated 26th July, 2007 affirming the earlier recommendations of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) that the applicants should not be granted a declaration of refugee status. Ms. Agnes McKenzie B.L. appeared for the applicants and Mr. David Conlan Smyth B.L. appeared for the respondents. The hearing took place at the King’s Inns, Court No. 1, on 26th March, 2009. 2. Pursuant to s. 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 the applicants must show substantial grounds for the contention that the RAT decisions ought to be quashed. As is now well established, this means that grounds must be shown that are reasonable, arguable and weighty, as opposed to trivial or tenuous. Background 4. According to the applicants, they lived in the city of Gujrat where the Ahmadi sect made up about 300 people out of a population of about 50,000. They married in 2000 and have two children, the first born in 2003 and the second in 2006. They were well-known Ahmadis in their community; other Ahmadis would come to their house once a week to watch a sermon broadcast live from London. The first named applicant (“the husband”) says he had difficulty finding a job after finishing school because of his religion but eventually he got work as an administrative manager in a “medical hall” run by an Ahmadi man who later became his father-in-law. It is a tenet of the Ahmadi religion that its followers should try and proselytise and both the applicants engaged in some degree of proselytising. While working at the medical hall the husband made religious literature available to visiting non-Ahmadi people and the second named applicant (“the wife”) did likewise at her home and in her work as a teacher. She had a high standard of education having a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Botany and was employed first as a lecturer and then as a science teacher in a private secondary school. She was a member of the Ahmadi Women’s Wing and did voluntary work in the evenings teaching the religious syllabus and giving religious instruction to young girls. She also provided books to people who showed an interest in the Ahmadi faith. Their meetings were held monthly in a Nasir Hall as Ahmadis were not allowed to build Mosques of their own or to call their prayer halls mosques. 5. In 2005, members of the Khatme Nabuwat (K.N.), an umbrella group of Islamists strongly opposed to Ahmadis, opened an office near Gujrat. On several occasions, members of the K.N. came to the applicants’ home and threatened them. They view the Ahmadi sect as “non- Muslims” and are actively hostile towards the group. The husband had been threatened at work. The applicants were friendly with a schoolteacher and preacher named Munawar who was a senior member of the Organisation of Young Ahmadis. He and the husband often preached together in adjoining villages. In late July, 2006, the husband and Munawar were attacked and beaten by members of the K.N. They required medical attention for their injuries but no steps were taken by the police to investigate. 6. Eventually the applicants were charged with offences contrary to Articles 295C and 298C of the Criminal Procedure Code which prohibit blasphemy. The background to the charges which can carry the death penalty involved their proselytising and the conversion of a Sunni Muslim couple, who were teachers, to the Ahmadi faith. When the newly converted woman’s brother learned of the conversion he informed either the K.N. or the police and the applicants’ home was raided by the police when they were at the grocery shops. The raid was carried out on foot of a First Information Report (“F.I.R.”) issued by the police on the 21st August, 2006 in which the applicants are charged under Articles 295C and 298C. 7. The wife’s father phoned them about the raid and warned them not to return home. The applicants went to Sarghoda where they stayed with the wife’s grandmother for a fortnight. The wife’s father brought their children to them. He told them that the K.N. had murdered their friend Munawar the day after they had left Gujrat. He also told them their house had been raided on two further occasions and the police were actively seeking them. The applicants felt unsafe in Sarghoda as it was well known that they had relatives there so they went to Lahore and then on to Karachi where they stayed for five weeks while the wife’s father made arrangements for them to travel to Ireland. They would normally feel safe in Rabwah but the police would know that they had gone there. 8. According to the applicants, the family left through Karachi airport and travelled via Bahrain and Oman, arriving finally at Dublin airport in October, 2006. Extension of Time I. THE HUSBAND 11. The husband also submitted translations of two newspaper reports indicating that a man named Mr. Munawwar Ahmad – an Ahmadi school teacher – had been murdered in Gujrat on the 22nd August, 2006 by “two unknown persons riding a motor-cycle” who fled after the attack. 12. The husband did not succeed in being recommended for refugee status. The s. 13 report relied heavily on COI which confirmed “discrimination against Ahmadis in Pakistan” which was found not to amount to persecution. It was also found that blasphemy prosecutions were declining and that police in Pakistan must now investigate cases before charges are filed. The ORAC officer also addressed the option of internal relocation to Rabwah where there was a large Ahmadi majority where Ahmadis occupy positions at all levels of authority, including the police. He relied on UK immigration authorities which found that “it will be the rare case in which an Ahmadi can establish that the authorities in Rabwah are unable or unwilling to offer him a sufficiency of protection”. Very strangely, the s. 13 report found that the applicant claimed that “it was well known that they (the applicants) had relatives in Ireland and that his father in law arranged for them to travel to Ireland and that they came to Ireland and claimed asylum on 13 November 2006.” 13. This decision was appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT). The notice of appeal filed on the husband’s behalf by the RLS specifically addressed the findings made in the s. 13 report and drew the Tribunal’s attention to numerous extracts which varied from the COI relied on by ORAC especially in relation to the alleged safety for Ahmadis in Rabwah. It was submitted that the ORAC officer had erred in finding that there is freedom of religion in Pakistan for Ahmadis and that the K.N., a militant fundamentalist Islamic group, had an office near the applicant’s home and were fully aware that the applicant and his wife were Ahmadis. It was submitted that the ORAC officer had failed to attach sufficient weight to the documentary evidence supplied, in particular the F.I.R. on a charge of blasphemy which was a very serious matter and which was punishable with death or for imprisonment for life. It was submitted that internal relocation to Rabwah was not an option and a report dated January, 2007 of the U.K. Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG) mission to Pakistan into Internal Flight for Ahmadis entitled “Rabwah: A Place for Martyrs?” was with many other reports appended in support of this contention. It was also pointed out that the applicant never said that he had any relatives in Ireland and that he had applied for asylum in October and not November, 2006. 14. It was submitted that although there was a general reduction in prosecutions under the blasphemy laws, of the 60 cases brought in 2005, 25 were in Rabwah alone where the Ahmadi “community suffers more severely because of the presence of a Khatme Nabuwwat mosque and a madrassa which regularly incites hatred against Ahmadis leading to systemic intimidation and violence.” 15. An oral appeal hearing took place in May, 2007 at which the husband was represented by Ms. McKenzie B.L. and a solicitor’s note of the evidence given by the applicant at the hearing is before the Court. It records that the applicant outlined his position as an Ahmadi and explained that in his religion there is a duty to preach. He outlined the discrimination against them and how their problems started in April/May 2005 when an anti-Ahmadi group moved into an office near his home. They mostly kept quiet but when there was a raid on their house by the police they were afraid and left for the city of Sarghoda where he did not feel safe as everyone knew they had relations there and it would be assumed that they would go there or to Rabwah to escape. He discussed the contents of the F.I.R. and denied that he, his wife and daughter were wearing badges as alleged in the first instance complaint. When questioned regarding his travel arrangements he said that they gave an agent four photographs and the agent arranged their passports which the agent showed to immigration for them on the journey. It was put to him that it is not the procedure at Dublin airport and everyone has to show his own passport but he confirmed that they had travelled through Dublin airport. The impugned RAT decision 17. In his “analysis” the Tribunal Member said he found the applicant to be “an articulate well educated person” who left Pakistan because of his alleged religious persecution. He found that to “preach religion to a community which is not of the same persuasion as the preacher and to encounter difficulties in doing so is not religious persecution”. The Tribunal Member basically rejected the applicant’s evidence on the basis that Rabwah would be the obvious place to go to avoid any threat or discrimination and that his reasons for not going there were found unconvincing. He found that there was some discrimination against Ahmadis but no institutionalised persecution within Pakistan and that “the Constitution provides for freedom of religion and there has also been a significant reduction in Blasphemy cases in Pakistan and more strenuous rules governing police in investigating cases of Blasphemy”. 18. He also found that the applicant did not give a full and true explanation of how he travelled to and arrived in Ireland and that his contention that he could pass through immigration in the manner described using a false passport was neither plausible nor credible. Reference was made to s. 11B (c) of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended. It was also noted that Ireland is not the first safe country in which he has arrived since he departed from Pakistan. The Tribunal Member found that the applicant’s failure to seek asylum in the intervening countries was “not consistent with an intention to flee from one’s pursuers and therefore the concurrent imperative to seek haven where one can.” 19. Ultimately, the Tribunal Member concluded that the husband had not demonstrated that there was an absence of protection available to himself and his family within Pakistan, especially Rabwah which is the headquarters of the Ahmadi movement in Pakistan and is made up of 95% Ahmadis. He also attached importance to the fact that the husband’s father-in-law continues to live and operate his medical hall within Gujrat. He relied on the same decision of the U.K. Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT) to which reference was made in the s. 13 report (M.C. (Ahmadi - IFA- sufficiency of protection) [2004] UKIAT 00139) and he also referred to the IAT’s subsequent decision in KK (Ahmadi – Unexceptional – Risk on Return) Pakistan [2005] UKIAT 00033, to which he said reference was made in the submissions. The documents submitted were described as “secondary evidence” to be weighed in line with his general evaluation of the applicant’s testimony. II. THE WIFE’S ASYLUM CLAIM 21. During her s. 11 interview she submitted a copy of her will, made out in 1998, requesting that she be buried in an Ahmadi graveyard in Rabwah. She also furnished a copy of the F.I.R sent to her by her father which she believed he had obtained from the police station. In addition she submitted three newspaper articles which record that a teacher called Munawar Ahmad had been murdered. 22. As with her husband, the wife and her children were not recommended for refugee status. In the s. 13 report the ORAC officer referred to U.K. Home Office COI as a source for establishing the guarantee of religious freedom and freedom to manage religious institutions, in establishing places of worship, the training members of the clergy and freedom to parents to raise children in accordance with religious teachings and practises of their choice in the privacy of their home. She referred to the U.S. Department of State International Religious Freedom Report 2006 which stated that there was a decline in new blasphemy cases due, perhaps, to the implementation of a revision to the procedures for the implementation of the blasphemy laws and hudood ordinances; police must now investigate such cases before charges are filed. She also noted that there is a ban on terrorist and sectarian organisations known to be active in the country – their assets remain frozen and their leaders were under surveillance. 23. The ORAC officer ultimately found that the wife’s account of the events that apparently led to her departure from Pakistan lacked credibility. In particular she found that there is no way of establishing whether or not the wife was a member of the Ahmadi Women’s Wing and as the F.I.R. is a photocopy, its authenticity cannot be verified or refuted. She noted that the President of the Ahmadi Women’s Wing was still living in Gujrat as was the wife’s father, also Ahmadi living and practising medicine in Gujrat. She pointed out that the wife was never actually harmed or arrested and she found it surprising the wife’s colleague had converted within the time-frame outlined. She made reference to s. 11B of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, with respect to the wife’s account of their travel to and arrival in the State and their failure to apply for asylum in Muscat or Bahrain en route. She also found that the applicant had an internal relocation alternative. She noted that the applicant had said she thought the police were attempting to trace the applicants in the Punjab and as the police in Karachi were not aware of their identity and considering Karachi has a population in excess of 9 million and is over 1000kms from Gujrat it is difficult to see how the applicants would have been located in that city. The Appeal 25. An oral hearing took place in May, 2007 at which the wife, like her husband, was represented by Ms. McKenzie B.L. A note of the wife’s evidence is before the Court. Counsel on behalf of the wife submitted that the wife’s claim is based on the freedom of religion, that part of their religion is preaching and that the applicants had high roles. The Presenting Officer made submissions with respect to the credibility of the wife’s account of her travel, s. 11B (a), (b) and (c) and the s. 13 report. The RAT decision “Given the nature of the society in Pakistan it is somewhat foolhardy to engage in preaching to the non-converted and expect no fall out from such actions. If one preaches religion in an area whereby others become offended it is hardly surprising they would become intolerant of such actions. There are areas of the world including this country, where one does not preach or look for converts when it would cause offence. It is not plausible therefore to claim religious persecution when members of a community do not subscribe to the faith that is preached at them.” 27. The Tribunal Member noted that while the applicant claims to be persecuted because she a member of the Ahmadi Women’s Wing, the President of that group is still living in Gujrat as was her father, an Ahmadi, who continued to practise his trade in Gujrat. He observed that the applicant says she was threatened by the K.N. but it does not appear she came to any harm in Pakistan. He repeated the wording of the s. 13 report that “Considering Karachi has a population of in excess of nine million and is over a thousand kilometres from Gujrat, the alleged location of her problems, it is difficult to see how she could have been located in that city.” 28. He was not convinced by the evidence that she feared arrest because of the F.I.R. but had no problems with the authorities in Karachi airport and found that if the authorities were keen on arresting her “she would not have left Karachi Airport in the manner described”. He found that that she did not provide a full and true explanation of how she travelled to and arrived in the State – and he made reference to s. 11B (c) of the Act of 1996. He found that it was not credible that she could simply walk through four international airports without handing her own documents. 29. He also found that she did not provide a reasonable explanation to substantiate her claim that Ireland is the first safe country in which she arrived since departing from Pakistan and that her failure to seek asylum elsewhere “is not consistent with an intention to flee from one’s pursuers and therefore the concurrent imperative to seek haven’t wherever one can.” 30. The Tribunal Member concluded that overall, as in the case of the husband, she lacked credibility. He stated that he had considered all relevant documentation including the Notice of Appeal and COI. III. THE ISSUES IN THE CASE Assessment: (I) THE HUSBAND’S CLAIM (a) No evidence of friendship with Munawar 35. The respondents argued that the documents submitted establish no link between the murdered man and the applicants nor do they indicate that he was murdered for religious motives. Assessment: (b) He could have gone to Rabwah 38. It was argued on the applicants’ behalf that in rejecting these explanations the Tribunal Member relied on two U.K. IAT decisions - M.C. (which was also referred to in the s. 13 report) and K.K. Counsel on behalf of the applicants argued that these decisions are distinguishable because the applicant in each case was an “unexceptional Ahmadi” who had no particular profile in the Ahmadi faith and certainly was not the subject of a First Information Report under the Blasphemy Laws. She argued that the situation pertaining to the applicants in this case was quite different and warranted that the Tribunal Member should have taken account of the U.K. Home Office OGN of 19th June, 2006 and U.K. Parliamentary Human Rights Group (PHRG) in 2007 entitled “Rabwah: a place for martyrs?. Both of those documents were before the Tribunal Member but no express reference was made to either of them and no reason was given for rejecting their contents. Counsel drew the Court’s attention to p. 23 of the PHRG report which states:- “Where a first information report is issued by someone outside Rabwah in respect of a person residing in Rabwah they arrest the person with the cooperation of the police station where the first information report issued.” 39. She also drew attention to the following statement at page iv of the report:- “The report itself draws no conclusions, allowing the facts to speak for themselves. However, the statistic that out of a total of 60 blasphemy FIRs recorded in 2005 against Ahmadis, 25 were in Rabwah alone, indicates that the misuse of the law is as severe in Rabwah as in the rest of Pakistan.” 40. In response, counsel for the respondents argued that as the Tribunal Member found that the husband was not at risk of persecution, there was no obligation to consider the option of internal relocation. He submitted that the PHRG report expressly states that it is drawing no conclusions from the conversations it had with various persons that the group met in Pakistan and he argued that some of the accounts were regarded by the group as being over-pessimistic about the problems facing Ahmadis in Rabwah. Assessment: 42. If the reports were considered by the Tribunal Member, then it is remarkable that their contents were neither commented upon in the decision nor were any reasons given for rejecting their contents. Having read these two reports, I have difficulty reconciling the Tribunal Member’s finding that if the applicants had been in fear in Gujrat, there was nothing to stop them going to Rabwah. One particular passage from page iv of the PHRG report was striking:- “This report makes clear the precariousness of life for Ahmadis in Rabwah, starved of opportunities for education and employment, menaced by the Khatme Nabuwwat and their rent-a crowd mobs bussed in from miles around, prevented from buying land in the town they developed. They are deprived of the right to manifest their religion in worship, observance, practice and teaching, as laid down in the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and they are constantly under threat of prosecution under the infamous blasphemy laws. This place is not a safe haven for Ahmadis fleeing persecution elsewhere in Pakistan; it is a ghetto, at the mercy of hostile sectarian forces whipped up by hate-filled mullahs and most of the Urdu media.” 43. There is no reference to this passage in the RAT decision which arrives at the same conclusion as contained in the s. 13 report notwithstanding that these two COI reports were not before the ORAC. I believe that a substantial ground has been made out here. (c) No institutionalised persecution 45. Counsel for the respondents accepted that there was a large amount of COI before the Tribunal Member but argued that there is no obligation to exhaustively consider that COI where the personal credibility of an applicant is not accepted. He submitted that the personal credibility of both applicants had been rejected. He further contended that the COI indicates that there is a certain level of discomfort for Ahmadi people in Pakistan / Gujarat but he argued that it is only those who come to the attention of the authorities who are at risk of serious harm. Assessment: 47. While serious and unassailable doubts were raised regarding the credibility of the applicants’ travel arrangements, they were not in my opinion such as to negate the obligation to consider the COI reports relating to the position of Ahmadis in Rabwah that were before the Tribunal Member. The least which could be said of those reports is that when viewed objectively, a reader would be aware that the safety of Ahmadis in many parts of Pakistan today was precarious and that they do not paint such a positive picture as was found by the Tribunal Member. Included in those reports was an article from the US-based correspondent to the Pakistan Daily Times entitled “Rabwah: a place for martyrs” dated 28th January, 2007; a further Pakistan Daily Times article entitled “Ahmadis remained deprived of their rights in 2006”; an Amnesty International Public Statement of October, 2005 entitled “Pakistan: Killing of Ahmadis continues amid impunity”; and a ThePersecution.org Newsreport of October, 2006 entitled “Narrow escape from murder attempt”. As those reports support a view that some journalists and NGOs believed that persecution of Ahmadis was taking place, it seems to me that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal Member to at least give reasons for rejecting their substance when arriving at his sanguine assessment of the situation of Ahmadis as a group and finding that they were subject to some discrimination but no systemic persecution. 48. I have read the relevant part of the U.S. Department of State report in its entirety and I am satisfied that substantial grounds have been established for the contention that the Tribunal Member engaged in selective reliance on one section of the report to the exclusion of other relevant sections. Substantial grounds have also been shown for the argument that the quotations of the U.K. Home Office OGN of June, 2006 contained in the RAT decision do not reflect the general tenor of the full report. While the OGN begins by stating that in general, the Constitution provides for freedom to manage religious institutions, it goes on later to detail the prohibitions applicable to Ahmadis including the 1974 constitutional amendment declaring Ahmadis to be non-Muslims; the insertion of s. 298C into the Penal Code in 1984; the fact that during 2005, the authorities conducted surveillance on Ahmadis and their institutions and several Ahmadi mosques were reportedly closed while others were reportedly desecrated or their construction was stopped; the tacit endorsement given by the government to campaigns against the perceived dangers of the Ahmadi faith conducted by Islamic clerics; the prohibition of preaching; the prohibition on travel on the Hajj; the banning of Ahmadi publications; the Hudood ordinances and the blasphemy laws; threats to kill those acquitted of blasphemy charges and the 51 Ahmadis facing criminal charges based on their religion. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the applicants have established substantial grounds in this issue. 49. I also note that an error of fact relating to the applicants’ relatives in Ireland made in the s. 13 report was followed through by the Tribunal Member in both decisions pertaining to the husband and the wife. The submissions made in their Notices of Appeal in that regard appear to have been disregarded by the Tribunal Member. While this aspect of the decision was not specifically challenged by the applicants it was drawn to the Court’s attention. I find the repetition of findings made in the s. 13 report in this and a number of other aspects of the evidence somewhat disturbing. Contrary to what is stated in the RAT decision, nowhere in any of the records of the hearings is there any evidence to support the presence of any family members in Ireland. (II) THE WIFE’S CLAIM (a) She did not engage in preaching Assessment: “I was a member of the Ahmadis Women’s Organisation in Gujrat. I was appointed as Secretary for the recitation of the Holy Quran and my responsibility was to teach the Holy Quran and religious education. I was at this job for the past two years. Ever since I became a member I actively participated in the welfare and preaching activities of the organisation.” 53. At her s. 11 interview she said that as an Ahmadi she attended meetings and was a member of the Ahmadi Women’s Wing. She and other women in that group elected a President and the President chose women to form a team to do voluntary work for her and that her role as Secretary Nasirat was to teach religious instruction to girls aged 14 years old and under, and to teach them how to read the Holy Quran. When asked if her work involved talking about her faith with non-Ahmadis she said “Wherever someone asks us we tell them about our beliefs.” On the subject of the conversion of her teaching colleague she said:- “She used to come to my home with her husband. We used to have discussions about religion. I gave them some books to read. They also watched a live address of our Caliph from London and they were very impressed. […] They also had a meeting at my home with the preacher of the town.” 54. She also said “We did not force them into conversion. We only told them our beliefs. I have no idea what they liked in our religion. Whenever someone talks to us about religion we clarify the false stereotypes spread by the opponent.” 55. At her oral hearing she again said her activities were preaching, teaching children, attending meetings and being part of the Women’s Wing. When asked if the family could have stayed in Pakistan if they ceased preaching she say “maybe” but preaching was part of their religion. This appears consistent with her evidence at the s. 11 interview. 56. I believe that the wife has established substantial grounds to argue that it was unreasonable to find that she did not engage in preaching her religion. (b) It was foolhardy to preach to the non-converted Assessment: (c) She came to no harm in Pakistan 60. Counsel for the respondents argued that the finding that the wife came to no harm in Pakistan is an unimpeachable finding on a factual basis. 61. Assessment: I am not satisfied that substantial grounds have been established in this regard. It is a matter of fact that the wife came to no physical harm as, according to her narrative and her evidence, she fled Gujrat before the investigation of the complaint against her had been commenced. As I am satisfied that leave should be granted on other more substantial grounds I am not prepared to grant leave to impugn the decision on this ground. (d) Her father is still in Gujrat 63. Assessment: I am not satisfied that there is a clear error of fact in this regard. The fact of the father-in-law’s relocation was mentioned in the husband’s Notice of Appeal but not in wife’s Notice of Appeal. At her s. 11 interview, she clearly said that her father continued to work in Gujrat and without problems with the K.N and that he was not actively involved in preaching. This ground is not made out. (e) She could have stayed in Karachi 65. Counsel for the respondents pointed out that it was not believed that the wife was a preacher or proselytiser and the veracity of the F.I.R. was not accepted. He argued that in circumstances where the family was not considered to have a prominent profile in the Ahmadi community, there was nothing irrational about the conclusion that they could have relocated internally within Pakistan. Assessment (f) Her account of her travel was not credible 67. Assessment: The applicants’ travel to and arrival in the State are matters of which decision-makers are obliged to take account under s. 11B of the Refugee Act 1996. In this case, the applicants said they travelled through four international airports including Dublin airport without personally showing any travel documents and without plane tickets. In the circumstances I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before the Tribunal Member on which he could have found their account implausible. This is not a finding that can be challenged and indeed was not challenged. (g) She did not apply for asylum in Muscat or Bahrain 69. Assessment: This is not a major part of why the applicants failed in their appeals but it is part and parcel of the negative credibility findings based on the possible failure on the part of the Tribunal Member to consider all the COI reports which outlined the intolerant view taken by many Muslims to the schismatic Ahmadi sect. It is at least arguable that in this regard the Tribunal Member failed to fully consider the wife’s evidence that the applicants did not apply for asylum in Muscat or Bahrain because those were Muslim countries. (III) (BOTH CASES) CONSIDERATION OF THE CORE ISSUE 71. Ms. McKenzie argued that it was unreasonable for the Tribunal Member to disregard the contents of the F.I.R. simply by reiterating what was said in the s. 13 report, i.e. that it was a photocopy and so its authenticity could not be verified or refuted. The wife’s Form 1 Notice of Appeal stated that it is well known that it is not possible to obtain an original of an F.I.R. as the original is always retained by the police and she claimed that the copy was a certified copy of the F.I.R. 72. Counsel for the respondents rejected this argument and argued that at all times, the Tribunal Member clearly addressed his mind to the issuing of an F.I.R. as he made reference to the fact that the applicants were not arrested going through Karachi airport even though allegedly the subject of a F.I.R. He urged the Court to consider that the evidence given by the wife at her oral hearing was that she was not stopped at the airport because the authorities were tracing the applicants only in Punjab and the Karachi police were not aware of their identity. Assessment: 74. The PHRG report of 2007 which was before the RAT states as follows with respect to F.I.R.s:- “A First Information Report (FIR) is the process through which the police take notice of alleged transgressions of the penal code and forms the legal basis for arrest. The Ahmadi Community Representatives explained the procedure for and consequence of filing an FIR. An FIR is lodged at a police station with the Station House Officer (SHO). Where the FIR involves a cognisable offence (those the police can consider without the need for a court to investigate, including the blasphemy laws) the police have to take immediate action and arrest the person concerned. There is no time limit between the issuing of an FIR and the detention of the suspect(s), but once an arrest has taken place the police must complete their investigation within 14 days. Following arrest no legal assistance is allowed at the police station and the accused must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.” 75. Thus COI that was before the Tribunal Member indicates that the issue of such an F.I.R. is a potentially serious step with grave consequences for the subject of the complaint. The possibility that the contents of the certified copy of the F.I.R. might be true was not fully considered and this was the core of the applicants’ joint and individual claims. Conclusion
|