H.F.A. (Pakistan) v International Protection Office

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 752
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 723 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 13 November 2017

[2017] IEHC 752

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2017 No. 723 J.R.]

BETWEEN

H.F.A. (PAKISTAN)

APPLICANT

AND

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICE, THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – Practice & Procedures – O. 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Injunction of transfer orders – Award of costs

Facts: In the present proceedings, both the parties sought costs against each other. The applicant sought an order for costs on the basis that he had been successful in obtaining injunction on his transfer orders. However, the respondents argued that the applicant had made an ex-parte application and did not disclose material facts to the Court that he had been an evader.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys made no order as to the costs. The Court held that the applicant was an evader and misled the Court by not disclosing the relevant facts. The Court noted that the applicant had received a registered letter from the authorities informing him about his transfer to the other jurisdiction, but he did not pick the letter up.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 13th day of November, 2017

1 The applicant was the subject of a decision of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on 19th October, 2015 to transfer his protection claim to the U.K. pursuant to the Dublin III regulation (604/2013). He appealed that decision on 9th November, 2015. On 2nd March, 2016 the Refugee Appeals Tribunal made a decision upholding the transfer.

2 The time period for implementing the transfer commences to run from the final decision. The relevant time period is six months, or eighteen months in the event of an absconding applicant. There was then a registered letter sent to the applicant (I will come back to the precise address) requiring him to report on 15th March, 2016, which he failed to do. The letter was returned as not called for. On 19th September, 2017, a leave application was opened before Barr J. and an injunction obtained restraining the transfer of the applicant from the State until the matter came back to the asylum list. I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Conor Power S.C. (with Mr. Eamonn Dornan B.L.) for the applicant and from Ms. Cindy Carroll B.L. for the respondent. As it is agreed that the transfer now cannot be effected the only issue is costs,...