A A L v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Dunne J.,Charleton J. |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 169 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 11 July 2019 |
[2019] IESCDET 169
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
O'Donnell J.
Dunne J.
Charleton J.
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 (AS AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2015
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 21st December, 2018 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 21st December, 2018 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 21st December, 2018 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 20th March, 2019 AND WAS NOT IN TIME. |
The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal directly to this court pursuant to Article 34.5.4° of the Constitution from the decision of the High Court (Humphreys J.) which dismissed his application for certiorari quashing a refusal of subsidiary protection pursuant to the International Protection Act 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’) (see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial