A national of Sierra Leone submitted an application for international protection in Ireland, citing his substantial engagement with the All-People’s Congress (APC), a political opposition organisation in Sierra Leone, as the reason for his well-founded fear of persecution if he was to be returned. The applicant’s request for international protection was rejected at first instance and then on appeal by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT).

The applicant was acknowledged by the IPAT as an ordinary party member who had travelled to the UK with the former first lady of Sierra Leone, but many other aspects of the applicant's claim were dismissed as not credible. In view of country-of-origin information (COI), the Tribunal rejected the notion that these facts would put the applicant at risk of persecution or serious harm. 

The applicant filed an appeal against the decision before the High Court. The applicant contested a credibility determination made in connection with a newspaper article that included the applicant, alleging that the Tribunal had failed to offer sufficient justification for dismissing the article's credibility. The methodology used by the Tribunal to assess the COI was also contested by the applicant. The applicant requested a certiorari order, which would overturn the IPAT's ruling upholding the International Protection Office's determination that the applicant should not be granted international protection. 

The High Court granted an order of certiorari. The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision to not give the article any weight was well-reasoned and supported by evidence, and that the finding could not be deemed unreasonable. However, based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal by the applicant, the High Court was unable to safely conclude that the applicant would not be at risk of persecution or serious harm. The COI submitted by the applicant supported the argument that even regular APC members, who were not themselves politicians or activists, run the risk of violence, arbitrary detention, or other forms of persecution or serious harm in Sierra Leone due to their political affiliation. Under the circumstances, the High Court determined that at the minimum the Tribunal had a duty to analyse the information presented by the applicant. The High Court further ruled that, if the Tribunal's position was to reject this COI or use other COI, the Tribunal also needed to provide an explanation for its reasoning. The case was thus returned to the Tribunal for a new assessment.