GK v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2001
• Date: 17 December 2001
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 82 of 2001]
• Court: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

[S.C. No. 82 of 2001]

G.K. v. Minister for Justice

G.K., M.M., Z.M. (an infant applying by her father and next friend G.K.) and P.K. (an infant applying by his father and next friend G.K.)

Applicants

and

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Refugee Appeals Authority, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Dalton v. Minister for Finance [1989] I.R. 269; [1989] I.L.R.M. 519.

Eire Continental Trading Co. Ltd. v. Clonmel Foods Ltd. [1955] I.R. 170; (1952) 87 I.L.T.R. 35.

Guerin v. Guerin [1992] 2 I.R. 287; [1993] I.L.R.M. 243.

P. v. Minister for Justice [2002] 1 I.R. 164; [2002] 1 I.L.R.M. 16.

Administrative law - Decision making body - Deportation order - Duty to consider representations - Onus of proof - Need for evidence that representations ignored - Immigration Act, 1999 (No. 22), s. 3.

Judicial review - Refugee - Extension of time to apply for leave - Jurisdiction of court - Principles applicable - "Good and sufficient reason" - Whether merits of substantive case relevant - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 (S.I. No. 15), O. 84 -Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 (No. 29), s. 5(2)(a).

Words & phrases - "Good and sufficient reason for extending the period" - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 (No. 29), s. 5 (2)(a).

Appeal from the High Court.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of Hardiman J., infra.

By notice of appeal dated the 26th March, 2001, the respondents appealed against the order of the High Court (Finnegan. J.) made on the 6th March, 2001, granting an extension of time pursuant to s. 5(2)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000, for the applicants to apply for judicial review in relation to the refusal of their application for refugee status and of the making of deportation orders.

The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Denham, Hardiman and Geoghegan JJ.) on the 4th October, 2001.

Section 5(2)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000, provides that an application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of any of the matters referred to in s. 5(1) shall be made within the period of fourteen days unless the High Court considers that there is good and sufficient reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made.

The applicants were Polish nationals seeking refugee status in this country. Their applications were refused at first instance by letter dated the 15th February, 2000, having been determined to be manifestly unfounded, which said finding was upheld by the second respondent on appeal. By letter dated the 12th July, 2000, the applicants were given notice of the issue of deportation orders in respect of them and they were invited to make representations pursuant to s. 3(3)(b) of the Immigration Act, 1999. By letter dated the 18th January, 2000, the applicants were notified that the first respondent, having had regard to, inter alia, the representations received on behalf of the applicants, had decided to make the said deportation orders.

In the High Court, the applicants sought and were granted an order extending the time to apply for judicial review in respect of both the decision to refuse refugee status and the decision to make the said deportation orders on the grounds that (1) that they had not had the benefit of legal representation at first instance and (2) that the first respondent had not considered the representations made on their behalf in his decision to issue deportation orders. By order dated the 26th March, 2000, the respondents were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order (Finnegan J.) extending time to apply for judicial review.

Held by the Supreme Court (Denham, Hardiman and Geoghegan JJ.), in allowing the appeal, 1, that the time for applying for judicial review in respect of any matter referred to in s. 5(1) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000, could be extended only if the High Court, or the Supreme Court on appeal, considered that there was good and sufficient reason for extending the period.

2. That, the phrase "good and sufficient reason for extending the period" clearly permitted the court to consider whether an applicant's substantive claim was arguable.

Eire Continental Trading Co. Ltd. v. Clonmel Foods Ltd. [1955] I.R. 170; Dalton v. Minister for Finance[1989] I.R. 269 and Guerin v. Guerin[1992] 2 I.R. 287 considered.

3. That a person claiming that a decision making authority had, contrary to its express statement, ignored representations which it had received needed to produce some evidence, either direct or inferential, of that proposition before he could be said to have an arguable case.

Cur. adv. vult.

Denham J. 17th December, 2001

I have read the judgment about to be delivered by Hardiman J. and I agree with it.

Hardiman J.

This is the respondents' appeal against the order of the High Court (Finnegan J.) whereby he extended the time (pursuant to s. 5(2)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000) for the applicants to apply for judicial review in relation to the refusal of their application for refugee status and of the making of deportation orders in respect of them.

The applicants, who are a family consisting of father and mother and two children, applied for refugee status on the 14th December, 1999. Their application was determined to be manifestly unfounded and refused by letter dated the 15th February, 2000. They appealed this refusal to the second...