Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
05/07/2022
IE: The High Court found that the International Protection Appeals Tribunal was right to not apply the benefit of the doubt to facts that remained in dispute with regards to a woman and her child from Zimbabwe whose application had been based on the risk of forced child marriage.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR)
Reference
Ireland, High Court, A.C. and N.H.H.C v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors, [2022] IEHC 430, 05 July 2022. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=3099
Case history
Other information
Abstract

According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:


"The applicants were a mother and daughter from Zimbabwe who claimed that the child’s father, VM, would subject the daughter to forced marriage.


The Tribunal accepted that the mother had been subject to violence several years ago but rejected the claims concerning the daughter, having applied section 28(7) of the International Protection Act and the benefit of the doubt, bearing in mind negative credibility indicators.


The applicants contended that considering section 28(7) of the Act as a basis to determine an applicant’s general credibility is unlawful. The Court followed the decision of Ferriter J. in AH and ors v IPAT and Anor [2022] IEHC 84 and quoted the relevant part of it: In short, it is clear that before the benefit of the doubt can be given in relation to undocumented aspects of an applicant’s claims, the applicant’s general credibility must be established (see s.28 (7)(e)). Once the applicant’s general credibility has been established, undocumented aspects of the applicant’s case do not need to be confirmed i.e. can get the benefit of the doubt where, but only where, the four other factors in s. 28 (7)(a) to (d) are satisfied.


The Court found: The Tribunal concluded that aspects of the applicants’ claim remained in doubt. The first named applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on her to establish credibility and the Tribunal was entitled to decline to apply the benefit of doubt to those facts that remained in doubt. Certiorari refused"


Country of Decision
Ireland
Court Name
IE: High Court
Case Number
[2022] IEHC 430
Date of Decision
05/07/2022
Country of Origin
Zimbabwe
Keywords
Credibility
Forced marriage/Child marriage
Vulnerable Group