C v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 03 April 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 223
• Docket Number: 2018 No. 516 JR
• Court: High Court
• Date: 03 April 2019

[2019] IEHC 223

THE HIGH COURT

Max Barrett

2018 No. 516 JR

Between:

C

Applicant

- and -

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Respondents

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 3rd April, 2019.

1 Pursuant to s.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as amended, Mr C seeks leave to appeal the decision in C v. IPAT [2018] IEHC 755 (the ‘Decision’). The decision on this application is informed by Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250, as supplemented in the immigration field by S.A. v. MJE [2016] IEHC 646. The court reiterates, mutatis mutandis, its observations in Connolly v. An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 624, para.14; however, neither side has objected to this Court deciding this application.

2 Mr C proposes the following purported point of exceptional public importance (the ‘Proposed Point’):

“Whether the obligation on the IPAT to provide reasons why an earlier decision is apparently being departed from, in circumstances where the two decisions are ex facie inconsistent, is engaged having regard to ‘all’ of the evidence in the respective applications or just having regard to the evidence pertaining to the analogous material element of the respective applications?”

3 Unfortunately the Proposed Point does not arise from the Decision, para.2 of which states that “The two applications did not feature ‘the same facts’… ‘all but identical facts’ … or ‘similar facts’. … They are different applications, yielding different decisions on different evidence.” Hence the “ex facie inconsistent” decisions of the IPAT have been found not to be inconsistent and there has not been the suggested “departure” by the IPAT from its earlier decision. In posing the Proposed Point, Mr C is asking this Court to review its own findings and/or to proceed on the basis that it did not make the findings it did.

4 The Proposed Point cannot be certified and leave to appeal must respectfully be refused.