A.A.A. and Others v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice McDermott
Judgment Date14 March 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IEHC 124
CourtHigh Court
Date14 March 2014

[2014] IEHC 124

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1007 J.R./2011]
A (AA) & Ors v Min for Justice & Ors
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

A.A.A. AND J.A. (AN INFANT SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.A.A.), AND E.A.A. (AN INFANT SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.A.A.), AND S.A.A. (AN INFANT SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.A.A.)
APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

A (A A) & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP MCDERMOTT 10.9.2013 2013 IEHC 422

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(3)(A)

GLANCRE TEORANTA v BORD PLEANALA UNREP MACMENAMIN 13.7.2006 2006/26/5686 2006 IEHC 250

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(1)

MEADOWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2010 2 IR 701 2011 2 ILRM 157 2010 IESC 3

Judicial Review – Refugee status - Deportation - Non-refoulement - Certificate allowing appeal to the Supreme Court - Absence of policy - Leave to apply for judicial review - Exceptional public importance - Public interest - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 - Refugee Act 1996

Facts: On the 27th September 2011, deportation orders were made in respect of the applicants. Subsequently, the applicants sought and obtained leave to apply for judicial review for an order of certiorari quashing the deportation orders on the basis that the first named respondent had not personally considered whether the State”s non-refoulement obligations would be breached by the deportation of the applicants. It was ultimately found, however, that the deportation orders were made lawfully, and the relief sought was ultimately refused.

The applicants brought an application for a certificate pursuant to s. 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 granting leave to appeal the judgement of the High Court on the basis that it involved a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it was desirable in the public interest to allow such an appeal to be taken. The question that was submitted for certification was whether in the absence of any non-refoulement policy of the first named respondent in respect of a particular country, it is consistent with domestic and European law if an ‘ad hoc’ decision is taken in a particular case by an official - instead of the first named respondent - on whether the State”s non-refoulement obligations is being complied with.

Held by McDermott J. that it was clear that s. 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) prohibits the making of a deportation order where the first named respondent is of the opinion that it will contravene the principle of non-refoulement. It was noted that during the judicial review hearing, the applicants had attempted to challenge the first named respondent”s decision in respect of refoulement on the basis that the system of assessment or the procedures applied were deficient. However, it was clear that the applicants had not been granted leave to apply for judicial review on this point; and it was, therefore, held that the proposed point of law did not arise out of the High Court”s decision.

It was further held that deportation and refoulement decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis following consideration of the circumstances of each case and the evidence available for consideration, instead of being taken on the basis of policy. As such, the Court was not satisfied that the point sought to be advanced was one of exceptional public importance or one where it was in the public interest to grant leave to allow it to be determined on appeal.

Application refused.

1

1.The court has already delivered judgment in this matter [2013] IEHC 422, refusing an order of certiorari quashing the deportation orders in respect of the applicants made 27 th September, 2011. The sole ground upon which leave to apply for judicial review was granted by Cooke J. on 17 th May, 2012, was:-

"The deportation orders are invalid by reason of the first named respondent not having personally considered whether the State's non-refoulement obligations would be breached by the deportation of the applicants."

2

2. The applicants were deported in accordance with these orders following the refusal of an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation on 13 th December, 2011.

3

3. The court was satisfied that the Carltona principle was applicable to the determination of the prohibition of refoulement issue under s. 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, and held that the deportation orders were lawfully made notwithstanding that they were not made personally by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The applicants have applied to the court for a certificate that the courts judgment involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of s. 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT