Akram v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 643
• Docket Number: 2017 No. 815 JR.
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 November 2018

[2018] IEHC 643

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2017 No. 815 JR.

Between:

MOEEN AKRAM

Applicant

– and –

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

and

THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

Respondents

Permission to enter the State – Unlawful detention – Immigration Act 2004 s. 7 – Applicant seeking permission to enter the State – Whether the applicant's detention was unlawful

Facts: The applicant, Mr Akram, a national of Pakistan, arrived at Dublin Airport on 21.10.2017. Although he had a travel visa, an interview with an airport immigration officer and a perusal by that officer of text messages on Mr Akram's phone led the officer to conclude that Mr Akram, who maintained he was visiting his brother, was coming to Ireland to enter into a 'marriage of convenience'. Pursuant to s. 4(3)(k) of the Immigration Act 2004, the immigration officer refused Mr Akram permission to land. Mr Akram was then held at Cloverhill Prison until 25.10.2017. On that date he was removed from Ireland. Mr Akram made the following complaints: (1) the taking of his phone from him and the perusal of the text messages thereon was unlawful; and (2) the first respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, through the immigration officer (a) erred in law in failing to provide any reason for the belief that Mr Akram intended to enter the State for purposes other than those expressed by him, and (b) erred in law and/or took into account irrelevant considerations and/or failed to take into account relevant considerations in the decision to refuse Mr Akram permission to enter the State. Complaint was also made that the conditions under which Mr Akram was held at Cloverhill breached Art. 5(1) ECHR. The principal reliefs sought by Mr Akram were: (i) an order of certiorari quashing the decision of 21.10.2017 refusing him permission to enter the State; (ii) a declaration that his detention was unlawful; (iii) a declaration that the search of his phone breached his rights under Art. 8 ECHR (at hearing his counsel in effect turned this into the challenge to s. 7 of the 2004 Act), and (iv) damages.

Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that it did not see that any irrelevant consideration was taken into account; the immigration officer's notebook and a contemporaneous computer log (the 'Border Management Unit Entry') suggested that all (and only) relevant details were taken into account in refusing Mr Akram permission to land. Barrett J held that the search of Mr Akram's phone was done in accordance with s. 7; the reading that the court gave s. 7(3)(b) and (c)(iii) seemed to it the natural and correct reading of those provisions. Barrett J noted that, having referred to Ejerenwa v Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2011] IESC 41, three reasons pervade the case-law as to why reasons are required for an administrative law decision, viz. that (i) the subject of a decision understands what has been decided, (ii) the subject can bring an informed challenge to same, if s/he desires, and (iii) a court can undertake an informed review. Barrett J held that in this case none of those objectives were impeded and all were satisfied. Barrett J held that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest, nor was it especially pressed, that the conditions of Mr Akram's detention at Cloverhill breached Art. 5(1) ECHR.

Barrett J held that all the reliefs sought would be refused.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th November, 2018.

1 Mr Akram is a national of Pakistan. On 21.10.2017, he arrived at Dublin Airport. Although he had a travel visa, an interview with an airport immigration officer and a perusal by that officer of text messages on Mr Akram's phone led the officer to conclude that Mr Akram – who maintains he was coming here to visit his brother – in fact was coming here to enter into a "marriage of convenience". Pursuant to s.4(3)(k) of the Immigration Act 2004, the immigration officer refused Mr Akram permission to land. Section 4(3)(k) allows for such refusal where ' there is reason to believe that the non-national intends to enter the State for purposes other than those expressed by the non-national'. Mr Akram was handed a standard form document, signed by the immigration officer and addressed personally to Mr Akram, stating ' This is to inform the person to whom this notice is addressed...[that] s/he is being refused permission to land in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration Act 2004 on the following grounds: (k) that there is reason to believe that the non-national intends to enter the State for purposes other than those expressed by the non-national'. Mr Akram was then held at Cloverhill Prison until 25.10.2017. On that date he was removed from Ireland.

2 In these proceedings, Mr Akram essentially makes the following complaints. (1) He...