G.M. (Georgia) v The International protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 22 January 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 32
• Docket Number: [2019 No. 314 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 22 January 2020

BETWEEN

G.M. (GEORGIA), I.G., G.M. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND G.M.) AND M.M. (A MINOR SUING BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND G.M.)

APPLICANTS

AND

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

[2020] IEHC 32

Richard Humphreys J.

[2019 No. 314 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Extension of time – Permission to remain – Deportation orders – Applicants seeking an extension of time to challenge a decision of the respondent – Whether the applicants’ reason for the delay in challenging the respondent’s decision was sufficient

Facts: The applicants, a husband and wife and their two children, applied for protection and were refused. An oral hearing of their appeal was held by the first respondent, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), on 10th July, 2018. The applicants received notification dated 8th October, 2018 that the appeal had failed. On 9th October, 2018 their solicitor indicated that they should apply for review of the permission to remain refusal, pursuant to s. 49 (7) of the International Protection Act 2015, and that advices were being sought from counsel regarding judicial review of the IPAT decision. No such judicial review was in fact instituted, so therefore, even bearing in mind that no particular details were given of whether or when a formal opinion of counsel was produced, inferentially on these particular facts the applicants’ lawyers did not think there were grounds to do so. After the s. 49 (7) review applications were refused, in February and March 2019, the applicants sought alternative legal advices. Having been told by their previous solicitors that counsel had advised against there being grounds for judicial review of the s. 49 (7) review decision, they were “advised” by immigration consultants THL Legal, who appeared to have improperly prepared court documents although they were not solicitors. That resulted in a Garda complaint and other investigations. The applicants also tried a number of other alternative firms of solicitors. Deportation orders were made in March 2019 and the applicants eventually got in touch with Trayers & Co., on 10th May, 2019. A statement of grounds was filed on 24th May, 2019 challenging not just the deportation orders but also the IPAT decision of the previous year. While an extension of time was granted without prejudice at the leave stage, this was challenged by the respondents, IPAT, the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Attorney General and Ireland. The essential explanations for the delay in challenging the original IPAT decision were, firstly, that the applicants were advised that papers had been sent to counsel regarding a possible judicial review and there was no evidence that counsel had come back with a definite position, and secondly, that the applicants were not advised to seek a second opinion.

Held by the High Court (Humphreys J) that this almost by definition was not a good and sufficient reason. Humphreys J held that to accept such an explanation would be to drive a coach and four through the legislation because it would apply to vast numbers of applicants, and indeed with a little adjustment could be made to apply to any applicant where the lawyers decide not to seek judicial review of a given decision; that would allow the dormant claimant to jerk into life months or...