THE REFUGEE Legal Service, which represents the majority of asylum seekers, has asked the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to review all cases decided by barrister Jim Nicholson.
This follows the tribunal settling a case where three asylum seekers sought to have their cases heard by someone other than him because of his "perceived bias". Mr Nicholson heard close to 1,000 cases from the beginning of the tribunal in 2000, and was the highest earner of any of its members, being paid €840,000. He resigned as a member of the tribunal last November on the eve of the settlement of the case, known as the Nyembo case.
The settlement came after the Supreme Court ruled that the tribunal had to produce the statistics on his record to the High Court, where asylum seekers were claiming he had close to a 100 per cent rejection rate.
It has also emerged that the Refugee Legal Service is reviewing the decisions of another member of the tribunal, Ben Garvey, to see if there is a basis for a similar court challenge of his record. Mr Garvey is the second-highest earner among members of the tribunal, earning €561,184 up to April 2006.
They are examining about 300 of his cases, and will decide in the next 10 days whether there is a basis for a challenge, as he too is perceived as rejecting the vast majority of appeals. Mr Garvey could not be contacted yesterday. These developments follow the revelation last week that three members of the tribunal were prepared to challenge the defence of the Nyembo case put forward by the chairman of the tribunal, John Ryan, and Mr Nicholson.
Frank Brady, the chairman of the Legal Aid Board, which is the body in overall charge of the Refugee Legal Service, told The Irish Times that he had written to the tribunal last week outlining the service's concerns about a number of issues. These included the implications of its settlement of the Nyembo case.
He said the letter set out a number of matters raised in the Supreme Court judgment, including the lack of clarity in relation to information coming from the tribunal.
"The tribunal did not try to defend [ Mr Nicholson's] decisions in court. It conceded indirectly there was an issue," he said. This could mean that all Mr Nicholson's decisions are now open to question. While it may not be practical to have all of them rescinded, as many of the people concerned have been sent back to their countries, Mr Brady said they would be trying to identify which of Mr Nicholson's cases were still in the system and looking to reopen them.
He said that the letter also asked that there be greater transparency in the appointment of specific tribunal members to hear individual cases.
This echoes an issue raised in the letter from the three tribunal members who were questioning the chairman's position. They called for "a new, transparent and accountable system . . . [ for] the allocation of cases to members of the tribunal".
...
Editorial comment: page 13