Awe and Others v Minister for Justice

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMs. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
Judgment Date24 January 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] IEHC 5
Docket Number[No. 280 J.R./2005]
CourtHigh Court
Date24 January 2006

[2006] IEHC 5

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 280 J.R./2005]
A (D) v MIN FOR JUSTICE
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

CHRISTIANA AWE DAVID AWE OLUWATOBI AWE OMOSHEKE AWE
APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
RESPONDENT

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 (DEPORTATION) REGS 2002 SI 103/2002

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

G v DPP 1994 1 IR 374

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(3)(b)

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(11)

ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & S5 & S10 OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) BILL 1999, RE 2000 2 IR 360

RSC O.84 r20(7)(a)

UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 1990

IMMIGRATION

Deportation order

Revocation - Fair procedures - Application for revocation of deportation order - Whether properly considered - Mandamus - Whether arguable grounds for contending that consideration should have been given to representations in respect of revocation of deportation order - Immigration Act 1999 (No 22), s 3(11) - Leave granted (2005/280JR - Finlay Geoghegan J - 24/01/2006) [2006] IEHC 5; 2006 4 743

A (D) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Facts: This was an application for leave to seek judicial review. On the 22nd December, 2004, deportation orders were made in respect of the each of applicants. On the 7th March, 2005 the applicants’ solicitor wrote a further letter to the repatriation unit of the Department. The applicant sought an order of mandamus directing the respondent to consider and decide on the application made on behalf of the applicants in the letter.

Held by Finlay Geoghegan J. in granting leave to seek the relief sought that the relief sought was not subject to s. 5 of the Act of 2000 and the applicant had made out an arguable case that the principles of constitutional justice and fair procedures required the respondent to determine the application for revocation of the orders contained in the letter. If prior to 21 days from the date of the order the respondent had made and issued a decision on the application then the order granting leave would be vacated and the application struck out.

Reporter: R.W.

Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
1

This is an application for leave to issue judicial review. An originating notice of motion was issued on the 15th March, 2005, following an interim order made on 14th March, 2005 and a statement of grounds filed on that day. On the 16th March, 2005, an undertaking was given to the court on behalf of the respondent not to deport the applicants pending further order. At the hearing of the application for leave on the 27th of October, I was informed by counsel for the respondents that the undertaking remained in place.

2

The first named applicant is the mother of the second, third and fourth named applicants. They are nationals of Nigeria. They appear to have arrived in Ireland at the end of 2002. Since early 2003, the second, third and fourth named applicants have been at school at Millstreet Community School. At the time of commencement of these proceedings the second named applicant was in Transition Year and the third and fourth named applicants in Third Year and due to shortly take their Junior Certificate.

3

The applicants made an application for asylum which appears to have been rejected. Deportation orders dated the 22nd December, 2004, were made in respect of each of the applicants. These appear to have been served in February 2005, with accompanying notices under s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The applicants were then required to present themselves on dates thereafter both in the Garda National Immigration Bureau, Burgh Quay, Dublin and subsequently in Cork.

4

In the meantime on the 2nd March, 2005, a letter was written on behalf of the applicants by their solicitor to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, repatriation unit indicating that they were awaiting updated medical reports in respect of the first named applicant; expressing the view that the first named respondent should not give effect to the deportation order without first having regard to the updated medical reports; stating that they were awaiting the departmental analysis which formed the basis of the decision to deport and asking that an undertaking be given not to deport pending receipt of that analysis. That letter appears to have been responded to by an official of the repatriation unit of the department by letter dated 7th March. The operative part of that letter stated:

"Please be advised that the time for making representations in this case has now passed. Once deportation orders have been signed and served, the enforcement of same becomes an operational matter for the Gardaí. Any further enquiries should be addressed to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, 13-14 Burgh Quay, Dublin 2."

5

In the same period, on the 3rd March, 2005, Donal Moynihan TD wrote to the Minister making representations on behalf of the applicants. That letter was acknowledged to Mr. Moynihan by a letter written and signed personally by the Minister dated the 4th March, 2005, in which he stated "this matter is receiving attention in my department." That letter was forwarded to the solicitors for the applicants on behalf of Mr. Moynihan on the 10th March, 2005.

6

On the 7th March, 2005, the solicitors for the applicants wrote a further letter to the repatriation unit of the Department on behalf of the applicants. It is this letter which forms the basis of part of the application for leave. The letter enclosed medical reports in respect of persistent lower back pain and reduction in spinal and hip mobility of the first named applicant and a number of letters submitted on behalf of all the applicants from different people in the Millstreet community with regard to what is stated to be the applicants' "remarkable integration into the Irish community". It also refers to the fact that they demonstrate that the children prove to be excellent and committed students; have won a number of awards and that the first named applicant is held in high regard by her neighbours and described as a mother that "raised her children to be honourable contributors to society". The letter then makes representations as to why the Minister should not now give effect to the deportation orders and in the last paragraph a request that the deportation orders be revoked.

7

That letter was responded to on 9th March by a different official from the official who sent the letter of 7th March, 2005, and a different attitude taken which was "the correspondence is being forwarded to the relevant unit of the repatriation section dealing with your client's case for attention."

8

Thereafter all communications from the Department ceased. An interim order restraining deportation was made on 14th March. In response to the motion issued on 15th March, seeking interlocutory relief, an undertaking not to deport was given. In the application for leave to issue an application for judicial review, a short affidavit was sworn in reply by a third official of the Department on 25th October, 2005. That affidavit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases

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