Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial Perspective

Abstract

The principal responsibility of refugee decision makers is to determine those to whom refugee protection is owed. The manner in which these decisions are to be made in Australia is the subject of ongoing debate. However, that debate is not the subject of this paper. The focus of this paper is on the credibility assessment of refugee applicants and its principal purpose is instructive. It is my hope that it will enhance the credibility of credibility assessment within existing processes. Its secondary purpose is to provide a basis from which policy makers may consider legislative and other procedural change.It has been suggested that the ‘devil is in the detail’ in refugee decision making. Working in a common law country, Australian refugee decision makers are afforded the (often binding) benefit of extensive judicial review of the refugee determination process.1 Thus, for Australian decision makers, the ‘devil in the detail’ is often to be found in a plethora of binding legal precedent. Accordingly, while the first part of this paper discusses selected matters which have facilitated the assessment of the credibility of refugee applicants in Australia, as one of the most authoritative domestic sources available, the second part of this paper principally focuses on the expressed views of Australian courts after examining credibility findings in decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.2