Dokie v DPP (Garda Morley) and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Cooke
• Judgment Date: 25 March 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 110
• Docket Number: [2008 No. 792
• Date: 25 March 2011

[2010] IEHC 110

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 171 J.R./2010]

Ezeike v Min for Justice

MR JUSTICE COOKE

APPROVED TEXT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN/

BOBBI EZEIKE

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

RSC O.84

C (L) v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2007 2 IR 133 2006/12/2419 2006 IESC 44

INJUNCTIONS

Interlocutory injunction

Immigration - Subsidiary protection - Deportation order - Judicial review - Whether fair issue to be tried - Whether damages adequate remedy - Whether balance of convenience lay between grant or refusal of injunction - Whether compelling reason for immediate deportation - Cosma v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2006] IESC 44 (Unrep, SC, 10/7/2006) distinguished - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (SI 518/2006) - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 84 - Relief granted (2010/171JR - Cooke J - 15/4/2010) [2010] IEHC 110

Ezeike v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Facts The applicant was a Nigerian national and had sought asylum in the State. The application had been turned down both by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Subsequently the applicant was informed that the Minister proposed to make an order of deportation and the applicant thereafter made an application for subsidiary protection under the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006. The applicant then married an Irish citizen and a deportation order issued shortly afterwards. Judicial review proceedings had been issued seeking to quash the deportation order. The present application was to seek an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation of the application pending the determination of the judicial review proceedings.

Held by Mr. Justice Cooke in granting the injunction. The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction. It was not unreasonable that a litigant who has invoked a right of access to the court should be entitled to be present at the hearing of the case. It was not impossible to envisage that queries might arise and instructions would be required. The substantive hearing was due to take place in the near future and thus inconvenience to the State by postponing the deportation was outweighed by the disruption that would be caused to the applicant were she deported and subsequently be held entitled to return.

Reporter: R.F.

1 1. The applicant has applied to the Court to injunct her deportation from the State pending the determination of the present proceeding. The context in which the injunction is sought is as follows.

2 2. By order of 15 ^th February, 2010 this Court granted leave to the applicant to seek judicial review of a decision made by the respondent on 30 ^th November, 2009 to refuse the applicant's application for subsidiary protection under the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006. Leave was granted by reference to the grounds advanced for that purpose at Section (e) of the Statement of Grounds in the proceeding at paras, (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). The hearing of the substantive application is listed for 15 June next.

3 3. The applicant is a national of Nigeria who arrived in the State in May, 2007. Having initially lied about her age she admitted that she was 21 years old and thenapplied for asylum. Her application for asylum was rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner on 31 ^st August, 2007, in a report which was affirmed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on appeal by a decision dated 18 ^th June, 2009.

4 4. By letter of 28 ^th July, 2009, the respondent informed the applicant that he proposed to deport her from the State and on 12 ^th August, 2009, she made the application for subsidiary protection under the 2006 Regulations.

5 5. On 20 ^th November, 2009, the applicant married an Irish citizen, a Mr. Patsy Sharkey. By letter dated 30 ^th November, 2009, the application for subsidiary protection was refused by the respondent and on 8 ^th December, 2009 an order was made for the deportation of the applicant from the State under s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.

6 6. By letter of 21 ^st December, 2009, the respondent was informed of the applicant's marriage...