N.S. and T.S., a married couple of Georgian nationals, requested international protection on 22 November 2021. They stated that they come from Orthodox Christian families and that their relationship and civil marriage were considered forbidden in that religious and social context because T.S.’s mother was N.S.’s godmother and N.S. had been promised in marriage to IK, a senior police officer. They alleged that, after their relationship was discovered, N.S. was ill-treated and threatened by her parents, and T.S. was seriously assaulted by IK and his associates. When he attempted to seek police assistance, no effective action was taken. They said they were further threatened, forced to leave their jobs, moved around Georgia, and eventually left the country. The International Protection Office (IPO) considered their claims credible but found that they had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and, on 17 November 2022, refused their applications. On 23 February 2023, they lodged a joint appeal, relying in particular on the fact that their marriage fell within the prohibited degrees of relationship under Georgian Orthodox religious norms. Although religion had initially been indicated as the basis of the feared persecution, on appeal they primarily framed their case under membership of a particular social group: N.S. as a woman promised in marriage and at risk of gender-based violence, and T.S. as an Orthodox man who married his mother’s god-daughter, linked to the broken engagement to a police officer. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) directed oral hearings, notwithstanding that Georgia is designated a safe country of origin. It accepted that both N.S. and T.S. faced a real risk of assault by IK that could amount to persecution. However, the IPAT found that the required Refugee Convention nexus was absent, holding that IK’s hostility arose from his personal desire to marry N.S., rather than, for example, religious disapproval of the marriage. It therefore concluded that the feared harm did not arise for reasons of membership of a particular social group and ultimately upheld the refusals in two separate decisions. The applicants subsequently brought separate applications for judicial review challenging those decisions. The High Court delivered a single judgment addressing both proceedings, having regard to the common facts and issues arising in their cases.

The High Court referred to the jurisprudence of the CJEU on gender-based violence and the recognition of women as a particular social group, in particular its judgments in K and L v State Secretary for Justice and Security (C-646/21, 11 June 2024) and in WS v State Agency for Refugees under the Council of Ministers (C-621/21, 16 January 2024). It noted that the IPAT did not find such circumstances in this case, holding that N.S.’s civil marriage, the only form recognised by the State in Georgia, excluded a well-founded fear of forced marriage. Although the IPAT referred to COI indicating that some forced marriages had still occurred in Georgia in 2016 and 2017, it nonetheless held that, as N.S. was already in a civil marriage, she could not be forced to marry someone else and therefore no well-founded fear of forced marriage arose. The court further observed that, while the IPAT accepted N.S. might be shunned by devout Georgian Orthodox family members, it considered this insufficient to amount to persecution. Therefore, the court confirmed that N.S.’s fear of persecution and serious harm stemmed from IK’s anger that he had wanted to marry her but was currently unable to do so. It considered that his threat was driven by vengeance, anger, or possessiveness rather than by a Convention ground, for example, religious disapproval of her marriage.

The court further noted that the IPAT proceeded to analyse state protection after concluding that, although no Convention nexus had been established, there was nonetheless a risk of serious harm. It held that the IPAT addressed state protection in light of the specific circumstances affecting N.S. and T.S. Specifically, the IPAT found that the fact that the police discontinued the investigation into the assault on T.S. after learning that IK was involved constituted a serious ground capable of rebutting the presumption that Georgia was a safe country of origin in the applicants’ case. However, the IPAT noted that T.S. had not approached another police station, N.S. had not made a police report, and neither had contacted the Public Defender’s Office. The IPAT considered that, although IK appeared able to influence some police officers, procedures existed in Georgia to address police misconduct and were generally effective, and that the case did not involve a political dimension such as would render state protection ineffective. The court confirmed the IPAT’s assessment of state protection, finding that it complied with the legal requirements established in the case law.

The court therefore refused the applications for relief by way of judicial review.