The High Court has ruled that the constitutional rights of asylum seekers have been breached by the failure of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) to grant their lawyers access to its previous decisions.
Mr Justice John McMenamim said the fact the tribunal does not publish its decisions "is unique in the common law jurisdictions".
He believed such a position "cannot accord with the principles of natural and constitutional justice, fairness of procedure or equality of arms having regard to the importance and significance of the issues to the applicants which fall to be determined in this quasi judicial process".
In an important judgment with implications for the future working of the RAT, the judge upheld challenges by eight applicants, including five children, to RAT's refusal to allow them access to previous decisions of the tribunal to assist them when making their claims for refugee status.
The challenges were brought by a Bulgarian national, who said he fled Bulgaria after suffering persecution and harassment as a result of a homosexual relationship he was involved in; a native of Cameroon who claimed she was raped within a forced marriage entered into when she was 15; and a Nigerian widow and her five children.
The action was against the RAT, its chairman, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.