Adam v Minister for Justice
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Hardiman J.,Mrs Justice McGuninness |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] IESC 38 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 341 of 2000] |
| Date | 05 April 2001 |
Between
AND
AND
BETWEEN
AND
[2001] IESC 38
Murray, J.
McGuinness, J.
Hardiman, J.
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis
Aliens
Aliens; judicial review procedure in asylum applications; applicants had been granted leave to seek judicial review of respondents decision to issue deportation orders against them; High Court had subsequently issued order discharging order granting leave and striking out proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action; whether High Court or Supreme Court on appeal has jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to seek judicial review of a decision; whether the courts enjoy an inherent jurisdiction to strike out an order granting leave to seek judicial review; whether applicants had in their original statement of grounds and affidavits made out a stateable or arguable case for relief sought by way of judicial review; whether proceedings disclose any reasonable cause of action or are frivolous, vexatious or doomed to fail;
Held: Appeal dismissed; order of High Court affirmed; jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly.
Adam v. Min for Justice - Supreme Court: Hardiman J., McGuinness J., Murray J. - 05/04/2001 - [2001] 3 IR 53 - [2001] 2 ILRM 452
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 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. In the High Court O'Donovan J in the Adam proceedings 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 Morris subsequently dismissed the Iordache proceedings. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the High Court did not have the inherent jurisdiction to set aside the grant of leave to seek judicial review. It was argued that in the case of judicial review a filtering process was already in existence in that leave to seek judicial review was not granted if the proceedings were frivolous. Mrs. Justice McGuinness held that the High Court had the jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave which should only be exercised sparingly. If leave to seek judicial review was discharged then an appeal would lie to the Supreme Court. There was no evidence that the appropriate procedures regarding the applications for asylum had not been complied with and the appeals would be dismissed. Mr. Justice Hardiman held that the applicants proceedings were vexatious and doomed to failure. There was no jurisdiction to grant an order compelling the Irish State to institute proceedings against Romania as external relations were governed by the Executive. It was improper to have joined such a large number of applicants in the proceedings with an attempt to distinguish their individual circumstances. The appeals should be dismissed. Mr. Justice Murray concurred with both judgments.
Citations:
TOMA ADAM V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP O'DONOVAN 16.11.2000
FLORIN IODACHE V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP MORRIS 30.1.2001
CONSTITUTION ART 29.3.4
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1951
RSC O.19 r28
VOLUNTARY PURCHASING V INSURCO LTD 1995 2 ILRM 145
CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.1
BARRY V BUCKLEY 1981 IR 306
G V DPP 1994 1 IR 374
ADAMS V DPP UNREP KELLY 12.4.2000
IRISH PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETY V CALDWELL 1979 ILRM 273
LANDERS V GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD 1997 3 IR 347
TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION TITLE 1
KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642
O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39
O LAIGHLEIS, IN RE 1960 IR 93
DOYLE V COMMISSIONER OF GARDA SIOCHANA 1991 1 IR 249
HOGAN & MORGAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND 708–709
HUGHES, STATE V O'HANRAHAN 1986 ILRM 218
SAVAGE'S APPLICATION, RE 1991 NI 103
LEWIS JUDICIAL REVIEW IN PUBLIC LAW 283 PARA 9–060
DE SMITH, WOLFE & JOWELL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 667 PARA 15.025
R V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE CHINOY 1991 COD 381
R V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE TURGUT 2001 AER 719
SCHMIDT V HOME SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM UNREP MURPHY 19.1.1994
R V HOME SECRETARY EX PARTE SHOLOLA 1992 COD 226
BAKER V NOEL 1971 1 WLR 803
FINNUCANE V MCMAHON 1990 ILRM 505
CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.1
Mrs Justice McGuninnessdelivered the 5th day of April 2001
These are two appeals in judicial review proceedings from orders made by the High Court striking out the proceedings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and discharging prior orders giving leave to issue the proceedings. The appeals have been heard together in accordance with an order made by the learned President of the High Court on the 30th day of January 2001. The appeals raise similar issues for determination by thisCourt.
The first appeal, in the proceedings Toma Adam and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others(referred to for convenience hereafter as the "TomaAdam proceedings"), arises from a judgment and order of O'Donovan J. made the 16th November 2000. The second appeal in the proceedings Florin Iordache v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others (the "Iordacheproceedings") arises from a judgment and order of the learned President of the High Court dated the 30th January 2001.
In the Toma Adam proceedings the High Court (Kinlen J.) granted leave to apply for judicial review by order made the 24th January 2000. The Applicants were stated to be persons who apprehended that they would be deported from the State and they were given leave to seek the followingreliefs:
2 "1 An Order of Certiorari quashing any deportation orders made by the first Respondent as the grounds upon which any such orders were made were in breach of Article 29(3)(4) Article 40.3 (sic) of the Constitution in disregard of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights 1951 and in breach of natural and constitutional justice.
2. An Order of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Applicants claims for asylum humanitarian leave to remain in Ireland or refugee status having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights 1951 and the current status of Romania vis-a-vis the saidConvention."
At the time the Applicants had also sought an order of Mandamus compelling the second and third named Respondents to institute proceedings against Romania under the provisions of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, but the learned High Court judge refused leave for them to seek this relief.
On the 27th June 2000 the Respondents filed a statement of opposition. At the same time the Respondents by notice of motion sought the following orders:
2 "1. An order discharging the order of this Honourable Court made on the 24th January 2000 whereby the Applicants were given leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the reliefs, and on the grounds, set out in the said order:
2. Further or in the alternative an order pursuant to Order 19 Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or, in the alternative, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, striking out or dismissing the Applicants proceedings herein on the grounds that the said proceedings disclose no reasonable cause of action against the Respondents or any of them, the said proceedings are frivolous and/or vexatious and the said proceedings are doomed to fail."
Both the statement of opposition and the notice of motion were grounded on the affidavit of Michael Quinn, an Assistant Principal Officer in the Asylum Division of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, sworn on 26th June 2000.
Subsequent to the issue of the Respondents" notice of motion the solicitor for the Applicants, Mr Pendred, filed a replying affidavit sworn on the 21st July 2000. In addition, on dates between 6th September 2000 and 9th October 2000 each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.S. v Minister for Justice
...S5 MCNAMARA V BORD PLEANALA 1995 2 ILRM 125 GORDON V DPP & MCGUINNESS 2002 2 IR 369 2003 1 ILRM 81 2002/12/2907 ADAM V MIN JUSTICE 2001 2 ILRM 452 R V SECRETARY OF STATE EX PARTE CHINOY 1991 COD 381 REFUGEE ACT 1996 S17(1)(B) Synopsis: - [2005] 1 ILRM 81 Facts: the applicants were grante......
-
Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála
...and the applicant. 3 Setting Aside Applications – The Test to be Applied 3.1 The leading authority is Adam v. Minister for Justice [2001] 3 I.R. 53. There the Supreme Court held that the High Court had an inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to apply for judicial revi......
- CS, BS (A Minor suing by his mother and next friend CS) and NK (A Minor suing by her mother and next friend CS) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Attorney General
-
Gordon v DPP
...The original order of Butler J granting leave should not have been set aside. Citations: G V DPP 1994 1 IR 374 ADAM V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2001 2 ILRM 452 R V SECRETARY OF STATE , EX PARTE CHINOY 1991 COD 381 O" CALLAGHAN V O" HUADHAIGH 1977 IR 42 FLYNN V DPP 1986 ILRM 294 MURPHY V DPP 1989 ......