Adam v Minister for Justice

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan
Judgment Date16 November 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] IEHC 105
CourtHigh Court
Docket NumberNo. 26JR/2000
Date16 November 2000

[2000] IEHC 105

THE HIGH COURT

No. 26JR/2000
ADAM & ORS v. MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY & LAW REFORM & ORS
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

TOMA ADAM, CONSTANTIN GOCIU, MARIA GRIGORE, ALEXANDRU IONESCU, CIPRIAN IONESCU, SEBASTIAN LUCA, GEORGETTA LUBASCU, IONEL LUPASCU, LIVIU-EMIL LUPESCU, ELENA MANCI, MIHAI GIEVE, STEFANITA MOCIANU, GABRIEL BUZDUGAN, DAVID MIRCEA NATANAEL, MINOR OLTEANU, ATTILA PAJZOS, VASSILI PAJZOS, MARIUS CORNEL PINZEAU, AUREL POPA, CRISTINA POPA, NULA POPA, NICOLETA POPA, MIKI VYLY SZASZ, IOAN TIMARU, DANIEL NELU VISAN, DANIEL MURESAN, ARGINT MUGUREL, ION SEVAN, VIOREL MATEI, DAN LUCA, IVAN MANUELA, OCTAVIAN GRIEL DANCI, VALERIU SAVIN, VASILE MARGARET LABASCU, MIRAMAR DOBRA, MIRCEA DOBRA
AND BY ORDER
MARIANA GOCIU, LIVIU-EMIL LUPESCU, MIHAI TRIFAN, STELUTA SERBAN, LUCIENI GIORGILA, ELVIS WIZI, MICHELA WIZI, MIHAI MATEI, IONEL MILITARU, MARIAN CHIRIAC, MARCU FLORIN, CLAUDIA FLORIN GOGA, LIOUDMYLA MASLOVA AND DIMITRI MASLOVA
APPLICANTS

AND

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

Citations

CONSTITUTION ART 29.3

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951

RSC O.28

VOLUNTARY PURCHASING V INSURCO LTD 1995 2 ILRM 147

ADAMS V DPP UNREP KELLY 12.4.2000

DOYLE V COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA 1999 1 IR 249

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5(2)

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999

R V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTH WALES POLICE 1982 1 WLR 1155

KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

CAMARA V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP KELLY 26.7.2000

Synopsis:

Aliens

Aliens; administrative law; asylum procedures; judicial review; practice and procedure; natural and constitutional justice; obligations under international law; class actions; applicants, Romanian nationals, seek order of certiorari quashing any deportation orders made by first named respondent on the basis that procedures employed by him in assessing their asylum applications constituted a breach of natural and constitutional justice and disregarded the State's obligations arising from its ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950; applicants also seek order of mandamus directing respondent to consider applicants' claim for asylum, humanitarian leave to remain in Ireland or refugee status in the light of Romania's human rights record; whether a party affected by an order granting leave to seek judicial review made on foot of an ex parte application can invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside that order; whether second named respondent (the Irish State) is obliged to take account of the provisions, criteria and standards laid down by (inter alia) the European Convention in its legislation and administrative rules pertaining to refugees and asylum seekers; whether second named respondent, in the light of its duty to ensure the effectiveness of the human rights protection system established among the states of the Council of Europe, is obliged to have particular regard to breaches of the Convention in particular states when determining asylum applications, to comply with the rules of natural justice; whether the Court can review asylum procedures in the absence of any direct evidence to support the proposition that appropriate procedures were not complied with, or that relevant considerations were disregarded, when the decisions to refuse those applications were arrived at; whether current proceedings disclose a reasonable cause of action against respondents; whether a class action was appropriate in this type of case; Art. 29 and Art. 40.3, Constitution; s. 5(1), Refugee Act, 1996.

Held: Reliefs refused; Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to seek judicial review made on foot of an ex parte application when this jurisdiction is invoked by a party affected by same.

Adam v. The Min for Justice - High Court: O'Donovan J. - 16/11/2000

The applicants, a group of Romanian nationals, had been granted leave to apply for judicial review in respect of their applications for refugee status. The Minister for Justice now sought to have the order granting leave discharged. On behalf of the Minister it was claimed that some of the applicants had already been granted refugee status. In addition it was contended that there was no evidence that the applications for asylum had been dealt with unfairly. O’Donovan J held that due to the differing nature of the cases of the applicants it had been inappropriate to include them in one set of proceedings. The respondent were not obliged to take account of the European Convention of Human Rights in assessing applications for asylum but was bound to comply with the principles of natural and constitutional justice and the relevant provisions of the Refugee Act, 1996. There was no evidence before the court which would warrant interfering with the decision-making process in question. Pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court the original order granting the applicants leave would be discharged.

Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan
1

By Order of the High Court (The Honourable Mr. Justice Kinlen) made herein on the 24th day of January 2000, it was ordered(inter alia) that the Applicants do have leave to apply by way of application for judicial review for;

2

1. An Order of Certiorari quashing any deportation orders made by the first named Respondent as the grounds upon which any such orders were made were in breach of Article 29 (3), (4), and Article 40.3 of the Constitution, in disregard of the provisions of the European Conventionof Human Rights 1951, and in breach of Natural and Constitutional Justice and

3

2. An Order of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Applicants” claim for asylum, humanitarian leave to remain in Ireland or refugee status, having regard to the European Convention onHuman Rights 1951 and the current status of Romania vis a vis the said convention.

4

The said Order was made pursuant to an application in that behalf made ex-parte and it is, I think, of significance that the reliefs thereby granted comprised only a portion of the reliefs sought by the Applicants in their Statement dated the 24th day of January 2000 of the grounds upon which their application for judicial review was being sought.

5

By Notice of Motion dated the 27th day of June 2000 addressed to Messrs. A.C. Pendred & Co., Solicitors for the Applicants, the Respondents seek;

6

2 (1). An Order discharging the said Order of the Court made on the 24th day of January 2000 or

7

3 (2). In the alternative, an Order pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or, in the further alternative, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, striking out or dismissing the proceedings herein on the grounds that the said proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action against the Respondents, or any of them, and that they are frivolous and/or vexatious and doomed to failure.

8

The said Notice of Motion dated the 27th day of June 2000 came on for hearing before me on Monday the 2nd day of October 2000 and, on that occasion, Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submitted that, in the circumstance that the interests of the several Applicants herein were demonstrably different, the proceedings herein did not qualify for consideration as a class action; a submission with which, as I interpreted his response, Counsel for the Applicants did not take issue. Accordingly, as it appears to me that the respective interests of the several Applicants herein vary considerably, I think that it was wholly inappropriate that their respective claims herein should have been included in the one set of proceedings. However, for the present, that is by the by. Counsel for the Respondents also submitted; not only that the interests of the several of the Applicants herein were very different but that insofar as some of the Applicants were concerned, they have, in fact, been granted refugee status so that their cause of action herein no longer subsists and in respect of others of the Applicants, their applications for asylum have either been withdrawn, or have yet to be finally determined, or are the subject matter of separate proceedings for judicial review so that it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the grounds for a number of the claims herein either do not exist, or are premature, or are the subject matter of other proceedings. Furthermore, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that no evidence has been adduced on behalf of any of the Applicants that their application for asylum was considered in an unfair or deficient manner and neither is there evidence to suggest that appropriate procedures were not complied with, that relevant considerations were disregarded or that any decisions made with regard to applications for asylum by any one of the Applicants herein was tainted with unlawfulness. Indeed, it is submitted on behalf of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Fitzpatrick v F.K. and another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 Abril 2008
    ... ... Inc v Insurco International Ltd [1995] 2 ILRM 145 , Adams v DPP [2001] 2 ILRM 401 and Adam v Minister for Justice [2001] 3 IR 53 applied; Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97, St George's ... ...
  • Doyle v Gibney and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 Enero 2011
    ... ... MOLONEY v LACEY BUILDING & CIVIL ENGINEERING LTD UNREP CLARKE 21.1.2010 2010 IEHC 8 ADAM v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2001 3 IR 53 K (D) v CROWLEY 2002 2 IR 744 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ... 15/1986), O 8, rr 1 and 2 - Behan v Bank of Ireland (Unrep, Morris J, 14/12/1995); Adam v Minister for Justice [2001] 3 IR 53 ; DK v Crowley [2002] 2 IR 744 , East Donegal Co-Operative Livestock ... ...
  • Pwy v Pc
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 Noviembre 2007
    ... ... to set aside leave granted on ex parte application - Whether jurisdiction most appropriate - Adam v Minister for Justice [2001] 3 IR 53 , Voluntary Purchasing v Insurco Ltd [1995] 2 ILRM 145 ... ...
  • Pearce v Westmeath County Council and Another
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 Julio 2012
    ...motu to extend time - Openneer v Donegal County Council [2005] IEHC 156, (Unrep, Macken J, 13/4/2005); Adam v Minister for Justice [2001] 3 IR 53; Gordon v DPP [2002] 2 IR 369; O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 IR 3; R v The Chief Constable of North Wales XP Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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