Employment Law Ireland@EmployRightsIE
High Court Overturns Protection Refusal of Married Bisexual Ghanaian Father of Two.
The High Court has quashed a decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing international protection to a Ghanaian national who claimed he was repeatedly assaulted because of his bisexuality, holding that the Tribunal failed to properly engage with medical evidence diagnosing post traumatic stress disorder and significant memory impairment .
The applicant, G.K., arrived in Ireland in the autumn of 2022 and applied for asylum the following month. He stated that he feared persecution in Ghana arising from his sexual orientation. He described himself as bisexual and said that although he was married with two daughters, he entered into a relationship with another man. According to his account, that relationship led to three assaults, each allegedly motivated by hostility to his sexuality .
There was no dispute before the Tribunal regarding the general country information. It was accepted that homosexuality and bisexuality face hostility in Ghana. The core issue was whether G.K.’s account of his sexuality, his relationship and the alleged assaults was credible .
The Tribunal identified a number of credibility concerns. At interview, G.K. provided an incorrect date of birth for his second child. The date he nominated would have meant that the child was conceived at a time when, according to his own narrative, his male partner had moved to another part of Ghana and was living with a new partner. The Tribunal regarded this as a significant inconsistency in the timeline .
He also stated that he arranged meetings with his male partner only at the partner’s workplace. However, he claimed that the first assault occurred at his own home while that partner was present. The Tribunal considered this difficult to reconcile with his earlier description of how and where they met .
In relation to a later alleged assault in a different town, G.K. said that local people must have seen the two men holding hands. The Tribunal found this improbable, given the accepted hostility to homosexuality in Ghana and the fact that, on his own account, he had already been attacked for the relationship. It also noted that he gave limited detail about his partner beyond basic identifying information and that there were discrepancies regarding whether he had told his wife about the relationship. These matters led the Tribunal to conclude that his claim lacked credibility .
In support of his appeal, G.K. submitted two significant medical reports. A Spirasi report prepared by Dr. Hugh O’Sullivan recorded physical injuries that were assessed as consistent with assault and diagnosed post traumatic stress disorder. The report also identified marked cognitive impairment, with the applicant scoring 14 out of 28 on a recognised scale where any score above 8 indicates significant impairment. It referred to the recognised impact of trauma on memory, including variability in recall and disclosure .
A second report from consultant clinical psychologist Dr. Christine O’Connell, who treated him over six months across 20 sessions, also diagnosed severe PTSD. In addition, correspondence from a local LGBTQ support group confirmed that he had been involved with its activities since his arrival in Ireland .
The Tribunal referred to these reports but found them to be of limited probative value. It described the physical injury findings in the Spirasi report as “consistent” with the alleged assaults, noting that this was the lowest level of probative value under the Istanbul Protocol. It further stated that both PTSD diagnoses were highly dependent on the account provided by the applicant and that the psychologist’s assessment had not been conducted in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol. On that basis, it held that the medical evidence did not outweigh its adverse credibility findings .
Delivering judgment, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty held that while a tribunal member is entitled to assess the weight to be attached to medical reports and is not bound by a clinical diagnosis, medical evidence must be considered as part of the totality of the evidence. If such evidence is to be rejected, clear and logical reasons must be given, and relevant matters such as documented memory impairment must be addressed .
The Court found that the Tribunal had not meaningfully engaged with the diagnoses of PTSD or with the detailed findings regarding memory difficulties. If the Tribunal considered that the credibility issues were so overwhelming as to justify discounting the medical evidence, that conclusion required explicit reasoning, including an assessment of what weight, if any, was attached to the identified cognitive impairment and why .
The High Court therefore quashed the decision and remitted the matter to a different Tribunal member for a fresh determination. The Court indicated a provisional view that, having succeeded, the applicant was entitled to his costs .
G.K. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Minister for Justice [2026] IEHC 229
