Artur Abramov v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Cooke
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 458
• Docket Number: [No. 87 MCA/2010]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 17 December 2010

Abramov v Min for Justice

MR JUSTICE COOKE

APPROVED TEXT

IN THE MATTER OF S. 21(5) OF THE REFUGEE ACT 1996 (AS AMENDED)

BETWEEN

ARTUR ABRAMOV

APPELLANT

AND

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

[2010] IEHC 458

[No. 87 MCA/2010]

THE HIGH COURT

IMMIGRATION

Deportation

Revocation - Appellant convicted of series of offences - Refugee status revoked - Threat to "national security or public policy" - Ordre public - Whether respondent entitled to revoke refugee status - Whether respondent entitled to expel appellant without considering whether appellant convicted of particularly serious crime such that he constituted danger to community - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), s 21 - European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI 518/2006), reg 11 - Council Directive 2004/83/EC, art 14 - Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, art 1C - Appeal allowed (2010/87MCA - Cooke J - 17/12/2010) [2010] IEHC 458

Abramov v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Facts The appellant had his refugee status revoked by the respondent for having been convicted of a number of criminal offences and serving prison time. On being informed of the decision the appellant was given an opportunity to respond but did not do so. A declaration was then made under section 21 (g) of the Refugee Act, 1996 on grounds that the appellant posed a threat to public order. The appellant contested that order on a legal point that the criminal convictions formed the basis that he was "a person whose presence in the State poses a threat to national security or public policy (public order)". It was submitted that EC regulations supplanted the provisions of the 1996 Act.

Held by Cooke J in acceding to the appeal:

Revocation of the status of refugee is only appropriate and compatable with the terms of the Geneva Convention where one of the events provided for that purpose in Article 1C has occurred.

The Minister should be directed to withdraw the declaration in this case because the appellant has not ceased to be a refugee.

Reporter: BD

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S21(5)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S21(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S17(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S21(3)(B)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S21(1)(G)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ELIGIBILITY FOR PROTECTION) REGS 2006 SI 518/2006 REG 11(1)

EEC DIR 2004/83 ART 14(4)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C(1)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C(2)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C(3)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C(4)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C(5)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1C(6)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 32

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 33(2)

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 32(1)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S21

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S8

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 1A(2)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S17(1)(A)

Mr. Justice Cooke

1 This is an appeal taken under s. 21(5) of the Refugee Act1996, (as amended) in which the Court is asked to direct the respondent to withdraw a decision made under ss. (1) of that section on the 4^th March, 2010, to revoke a declaration of refugee status that had been made in favour of the appellant on the 27^th November, 2002.

2 The background to the appeal can be stated very briefly. The appellant is a native of Dagistan in Russia, who arrived in the State in 2002 and claimed asylum. He claimed a fear of persecution if returned to Russia on grounds of his religious or ethnic origin. He is Jewish. By letter of the 12^th November, 2002, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner indicated that his application had been successful and that he would be granted refugee status in accordance with s. 17(1) of the Refugee Act 1996.

3 The respondent later became aware that the appellant had been the subject of a series of criminal convictions in the State and made inquiries with the Garda Síochána. These inquiries resulted in a report indicating that the appellant had been convicted of a series of offences between August 2007 and July 2008, which included a sentence of imprisonment for six months in Castlereagh for theft. As a result, by letter of the 5^th January, 2009, the respondent proposed to revoke the appellant's refugee status upon the following grounds:-

"Your persistent involvement in criminal activities during your time in the State resulting in numerous criminal convictions for which you have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment and other sanctions. On the basis of this, it appears that you are a person whose presence in the State poses a threat to national security or public policy and thereby rendering yourself liable to revocation of your refugee status."

4 The appellant was invited to make representations to the respondent against that proposal. A further report from An Garda Síochána in March 2009 indicated that further convictions had been recorded against the appellant at Tralee District Court on the 6^th October, 2008. The appellant did not file any representations in accordance with s. 21(3)(b) of the Act of 1996, against the proposal to revoke refugee status. As a result, the Minister decided on the 2^nd April, 2009, to revoke the refugee declaration. This revocation was challenged on the ground that the appellant had not received the proposal in question because he was incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison and not in Castlereagh Prison (where the letter had been sent,) and the proceedings in that regard were compromised on the 2^nd November, 2009, and the revocation was withdrawn.

5 On the 26^th November, 2009, the respondent again indicated his proposal to revoke refugee status pursuant to s. 21(l)(g) of the Act of 1996 in the following terms:-

"Your persistent involvement in criminal activities during your time in the State resulting in numerous criminal convictions for which you have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment and other sanctions. On the basis of this, it appears that you are a person whose presence in the State poses a threat to national security or public policy and thereby rendering yourself liable to revocation of your refugee status."

6 In response, submissions were filed on behalf of the appellant on the 4^th December, 2009.

7 In the support of the contested decision to revoke the declaration of refugee status, the respondent furnished a detailed memorandum headed "Possible Revocation of Refugee Status" dated the 27^th January, 2010 and compiled by the Ministerial Decisions Unit. This outlined the detailed history of the appellant's position in the State, the previous revocation and the acceptance of the need to re-examine it. In this memorandum the reason given for the consideration of revocation was expressed as follows:-

"Artur Abramov would appear to be a habitual criminal. It would appear that he is progressing into more serious crime. He served three previous prison sentences ranging from two months to eight months for theft having received stolen property."

8 These convictions were then examined in more explicit detail. The representations made on his behalf are then considered. The representations include the assertion that his problems are due to an addiction to heroin. This is considered. The view is then expressed:-

"It would appear that Mr. Abroamov has involved himself in an increasingly serious level of crime since he arrived in the State.... No...