Abdelkefi v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1983 WJSC-HC 1725
• Docket Number: 6410p/1980
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1984

ABDELKEFI v. MIN.JUSTICE

MOHAMMED ABDELKEFI AND SUSANNE ABDELKEFI

.V.

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

1983 WJSC-HC 1725

6410p/1980

THE HIGH COURT

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barrondelivered the 27th day of January 1983.

2 The first-named Plaintiff was born in the year 1949 in Tunisia of a Tunisian father and a French mother. At the date of his birth Tunisia was governed by France. It became independent in 1956 and the first-named Plaintiff and his mother together with other French nationals were required to leave the country. It is not clear from the evidence whether or not his father also accompanied the Plaintiff and his mother. However, if he did, the family did not remain together for long. The first-named Plaintiff remained in France with his mother until the year 1968 when he went to England. He was then, as now, a Tunisian citizen, although, if he had remained in France until he reached the age of 21, he would under French law, by virtue of his mother's nationality have acquired French citizenship. He says that he went to England following student unrest in France and thewithdrawal of his student grant. Whatever the reason, the evidence does not disclose the basis upon which he was permitted to enter that country. It would not appear to have been as the holder of either a French or a Tunisian passport.

3 Following his move to England in 1968, the first-named Plaintiff became a student at the School of Business Studies at Holborn, London. He does not appear to have obtained any qualification from this period of study and in the year 1973 and subsequently he appears to have been engaged as an employee with a commercial business firm. In 1976, he appears to have set up his own business in London and in the course of that business to have advertised in this country and to have carried on business here. Having regard to the volume of trade emanating from this jurisdiction, he decided to set up business here. In pursuance of this decision, he provided himself with a home in Dublin in the month of November, 1978. In order to ensure that he would have permission to set up business he contacted the Aliens Registration Office. He appears to have been in no hurry to obtain this permission and returned to London. During the early part of the summer 1979he appears to have gone to Jersey where he felt homesick for France and travelled on to Paris. This turned out to be a mistake, in the sense that he found himself in France without proper papers to return either to Ireland or to England. He sought to return to Ireland by the Le Havre-Rosslare ferry. However he was turned back at Rosslare and refused entry. I am satisfied from the evidence that this was the first time that the first-named Plaintiff had left either England or Ireland since he first came to England in the year 1968 and that whatever documentary evidence he had to entitle him to enter England in 1968 had long since ceased to be valid. There was no particular reason why the first-named Plaintiff should not have sought to return from France to England rather than to Ireland. In his evidence, he said that he travelled with a girlfriend from England whom he had asked to join him in Paris for this purpose. This suggests that he was aware that he had no proper papers and that he thought that by travelling with a companion he might be permitted entry, when he would not have been had he been on his own. As a result of being refused entry, he hadto obtain a passport. Although he regarded himself as French and called himself Alain Mady, taking this latter name from his mother, he was not French and so was not entitled to a French passport. The only passport to which he was entitled was a Tunisian passport. He appears to have obtained such a passport in his correct name in Tunisia on the 4th August, 1979 and returned to Ireland on this passport on the 4th October, 1979.

4 On his return to Ireland, he appears to have been interested still in setting up his business here. He apparently handed in his passport to the Aliens Registration Office on the understanding that they were processing his application for permission to set up this business. He received a receipt for this passport which he said he was told would be adequate for purposes of travel to England. He returned to England towards the end of December 1979. While in England, he was detained by the police. It appears from the passport which he was using at that time that he was the subject of a detention order under the Immigration Act,1971.Following the making of this order it appears that he left England for Tunisia. The evidence as to how this came about and why he did so is totally unsatisfactory.

5 In his direct evidence, the first-named Plaintiff gave the impression that the purpose of his return to England was to give technical evidence in a civil action. In cross-examination, it became apparent that whatever about any civil action, he had to attend the Crown Court at Kingston-on-Thames to answer a charge that he had attempted to obtain property by deception. He appears to have pleaded guilty to this and he was sentenced to conditional discharge for twelve months. The Plaintiff further said in his evidence that while he was in England there was an I.R.A. bombing incident and that he was taken by the police to Ilford police station. He said that the absence of his passport and more importantly perhaps the difference of name on the receipt for his passport and his use of the name Alain Mady made the police in England suspicious of him. The officer in Ilford police station dealing with the Plaintiff was one Police Constable Hibben.In a letter written to the Aliens Registration Office, subsequently, he complains about the treatment he received from this police officer. When asked by me for the name of the Plaintiff in the civil action which he originally maintained was the reason for his journey to England the Plaintiff gave me the same name. I find the coincidence of such an unlikely name suggestive of the fact that it was made up. On the probabilities, it seems to me that the Plaintiff went to England solely to meet the criminal prosecution against him. The evidence does not disclose sufficiently the reason that he was required to leave that jurisdiction, but he was apparently allowed to leave only forTunisia.

6 Before he left England, the Plaintiff received his passport from Dublin. Mr. O'Toole, an official of the Department of Justice, said in his evidence that he had received a telephone call from the United Kingdom police to say that the first-named Plaintiff was being held in detention. He apparently did not ask why, and said nothing about any request either from the Plaintiff or the United Kingdom police for thePlaintiff's passport. Nevertheless this document was forwarded by the Aliens Registration Office to the English authorities.

7 I do not intend to try to unravel the matter further, because, although what happened in England during this period is important in that it affected the Plaintiff's subsequent actions in relation to his return to this country, a finding as to what did occur is not essential to my decision. I am satisfied however that the Plaintiff did not travel to Tunisia willingly in the sense that if he had been free to go where he wanted, he would not have gone there. I am also satisfied that at this stage he believed that he would not be allowed to return to...