The applicant, Pakistani national, left her country after allegedly being continuously maltreated by family members. She sought asylum in Ireland later than her arrival, based on her misunderstandings of the asylum regime. Her international protection application was dismissed and IPAT confirmed the negative decision, She further sought judicial review based on two arguments: one was a piece of evidence concerning a publication made reportedly by her father and the High Court rejected this ground, after having found that IPAT properly weighed the evidence.

The second argument was in relation to the risks the applicant, a single Pakistani female may encounter in her country of origin upon return. The High Court made an extensive analysis on the obligations of IPAT with regard to an assessment of past persecution and the risk of future persecution. The High Court held, inter alia, that although some particular facts or events relied upon as evidence of past persecution have not been contested, it would not relieve the administrative authority of the obligation to verify whether, nevertheless, there is a risk of future persecution in the event of return. Practically, the precise impact of the finding of lack of credibility in that regard upon the evaluation of the risk of future persecution must necessarily depend upon the nature and extent of the findings which reject the credibility of the first stage. Consequently, the obligation to consider the risk of future persecution must have a basis in some elements of the applicant's story which can be accepted as possibly being true.

The High Court allowed the certiorari relief sought and referred the case back for a new examination.