The Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) is where the unwanted go. Some unwanted by their own states, all unwanted by ours. This is the first of two possible stages of appeal, where lawyers put forth the case for overturning the decision of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC).

However, while people who end up before the tribunal have already had their application for asylum in Ireland rejected, serious allegations remain that, depending on which tribunal member hears your application, your appeal may have no prospect of success. The Supreme Court is due to make a judgement next month on the issue of transparency in the asylum process.

The refusal of the tribunal to publish their verdicts was challenged in the High Court last year, when Justice MacMenamin ruled that failure to allow asylum applicants access to prior decisions "cannot accord with the principles of natural and constitutional justice, fairness of procedure or equality of aims having regard to the importance and significance of the issues to the applicants which fall to be determined in this quasi-judicial process". The state appealed against this ruling to the Supreme Court, which is currently considering their judgement.

The Refugee Legal Service has long complained of inconsistency within the appeals system.

Although the RAT refuses to publish statistics for the decisions of different members of the tribunal, according to statistics collated over a year ago by the Refugee Legal Service, barrister James Nicholson rejected over 95% of 400 appeals that he heard.

According to legal sources, the outcome of a case "depends almost entirely" on who is hearing it. A report by the Human Rights Centre in Galway, published three years ago, found that just 13% of lawyers appearing before the RAT considered there to be consistency between judgments delivered by different members.

According to one legal source: "You could have two identical cases and one would be granted asylum and the other would be deported . . . there is zero consistency."

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal was established in 2000 under the 1996 Refugee Act to hear appeals against initial decisions on refugee status by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioners. Applications for refugee status and appeals are heard in private in order to preserve the confidentiality of the applicant. This is standard practice internationally.

However, the RAT differs from similar bodies across Europe by not publishing its decisions, statistics relating to decisions or the basis on which cases are allocated to individual members.

The only figures published by RAT concern the outcome of appeals.

Not only does this have serious implications for the transparency of the process, it also acts against the applicant by denying their legal team access to past decisions. In effect, lawyers are going into the tribunal blind . . . making legal arguments completely unaware of what criteria the tribunal will look positively upon.

Not all members of the RAT are satisfied with the current procedures.

Last December, two members of the tribunal, barristers Sunniva McDonagh and Doreen Shivnan, resigned from their positions in a dispute believed to be based on the lack of transparency in the system. The two barristers were also critical of the tribunal's chairman, John Ryan.

In April 2005, McDonagh wrote an article for Bar Review calling for the publishing of decisions at the RAT. She also noted that "disquiet has been voiced concerning a perceived wide discrepancy between members in relation to recognition rates".

There are 35 members of the appeals tribunal and they are all appointed directly by the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell. There is no necessary qualification other than five years in legal practice. Unlike judges, members of the tribunal are paid on a case-by-case basis, with some members having earned almost a quarter-of-amillion euro over the last number of years. The fees vary depending on the details of the case, ranging from 165 to 1,150. A full oral hearing lasts up to one hour.

Questions remain over the use of taxpayer's money in the asylum process. Only a very small number of applicants, often in the region of 5%, are granted asylum after their first interview, yet almost 20% of appeals are granted. This begs the question . . . if the applicant's case is legitimate, why were they not granted refugee status at the first stage?

Given the power of minister McDowell in the process, concern has been voiced at some of his pronouncements, most notably when he questioned the need for the Geneva Convention last year. Under the terms of the convention, anyone who wishes to claim asylum in a country must be allowed to do so.

However, McDowell last year voiced his frustration at this, saying: "I would much prefer to have a system where I could have an interview at the airport, find out the cock-and-bull stories that are going on [and put them] on the next flight. But unfortunately, the UN Convention requires me to go through due process in respect of all these claims."

Given the strength of that statement, questions have been raised over the fact that over 4,000 people were turned away from Ireland at points of entry last year. Although there is no way of knowing what percentage, if any, of these people were potential asylum seekers, concern has been expressed that Ireland may be failing to live up to its obligations under the Geneva Convention by turning away people wishing to claim asylum. The Labour Party has called for independent monitors to be located at major air and sea ports in order to ensure that anyone claiming asylum is allowed to do so.