D (G) & D (M) v Minister for Justice and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Finnegan |
| Judgment Date | 15 April 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] IEHC 145 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 15 April 2002 |
[2002] IEHC 145
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5
ZGNATEV V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP FINNEGAN 29.3.2001
Z V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2002 2 ILRM 215
K V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP FINNEGAN 8.4.2002
S V MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP FINNEGAN 8.4.2002
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
CONSTITUTION ART 42
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
P & L & B V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2002 1 ILRM 16
P & L & B V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2002 1 ILRM 38
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(6)
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(3)(B)(2)
KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642
CONSTITUTION ART 29.6
Synopsis:
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Immigration
Asylum - Reasons - Irrelevant considerations - Fixed policy - Constitution - European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Refugee Act, 1996 - Immigration Act, 1999 - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 (2000/594JR - Finnegan P - 15/4/2002)
D (M) and D (G) v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
The applicants' applications for refugee status were refused by letter dated 12th April, 2000 and the reasons for such refusal were set out in a Hope Hanlan letter. The applicants appealed this decision to the Appeals Authority and this application was refused by letter of 23rd May, 2000. The applicants were subsequently notified by letter dated 17th October 2000 of the first named respondents intention to make deportation orders. The reason for these orders was stated to be that the applicants had been refused refugee status. The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review of the respondents decision based on the fact that the respondent failed to provide adequate reasons, failed to specify on the face of the deportation order the period within which the applicant was required to leave the state, failed to consider the relevant statutory provisions in conjunction with all the circumstances of the applicant's case, took into account irrelevant considerations, applied a fixed policy and violated the Constitution of Ireland and European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Held by Finnegan J in refusing the applicants' application: 1. That the grounds set out at paragraphs 1 (a) - (p) and 2 were in substance identical to those relied upon by the applicant in the decided cases of Z v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Unrep High Court 29th March, 2001 and Supreme Court 1st March, 2002 and K v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and S v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform High Court 8th April, 2002. The facts and arguments in those cases were identical to the facts and arguments in this case and accordingly for the reasons stated in those decisions the applicants failed to establish substantial grounds.
2. That the reason provided by the respondent for making the deportation orders was an adequate reason.
P.B. and L. v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform unreported Smyth J, 2nd January 2001 followed.
3. That the deportation orders were in the prescribed form and the period of time within which the applicants were required to leave the State appeared from the accompanying letter and there was an internal reference between the letter and the deportation order.
P.B. and L. v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Supra followed.
4. That the letter notifying the applicants of the respondent's decision to make deportation orders explicitly stated that Section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996 had been complied with and that regard was given to the provisions of the Immigration Act 1999. There was nothing to suggest that the applicants did not understand the contents of this letter.
5. That judicial review is not an appeal and it is immaterial that the court on considering the circumstances of the case might have come to a different conclusion provided that the conclusion arrived at by the decision maker was not one that no reasonable decision maker could have arrived at.
6. That the invocation of the common good and the State's policies was a legitimate and relevant consideration. It was also legitimate and appropriate to have regard to the U.N.H.C.R's position, policy and advice.
7. That the applicants' cases were considered against appropriate criteria and no fixed policy was applied.
Reporter: L. O'S
Judgment of Mr. Justice Finnegandelivered on the 15th day of April 2002
This is an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review regulated by the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000section 5 and leave shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision, determination, recommendation, refusal or order is invalid or ought to be quashed. The grounds relied upon by the Applicant are set forth in the schedule hereto. The grounds set out at 1.(a)-(p) and 2. are in substance identical to those relied upon by the Applicant in Z v The Minister forJustice, Equality and Law Reform in which I gave Judgment on the 29th day of March 2001 and on appeal the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.O.I. v Minister for Justice
... ... An Bord Pleanála [1993] I.R. 39 may fall short of what is likely to be required for the protection of such rights see also the decision of Clarke J. in Gashi and Others v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform and Another (Clarke J. unreported, 3rd December, 2004 ; and E.M.S. referred to earlier) ... 39 On behalf of the respondent in this application for leave Mr. Tim O'Connor Barrister at Law submitted that the issues in this case reduce themselves ... ...