J.C. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR JUSTICE COOKE
• Judgment Date: 14 January 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IEHC 24
• Docket Number: [2007 No. 1028 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 January 2009

[2009] IEHC 24

THE HIGH COURT

[2007 No. 1028 J.R.]

C (J) v Min for Justice & Commissioner of Garda Síochána

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

J.C.

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

AND

THE COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

RESPONDENTS

IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S4

GOOLD v COLLINS & ORS 2005 1 ILRM 1 2004/19/4389 2004 IESC 38

K (F) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP CHARLETON 20.2.2008 2008 IEHC 35

IMMIGRATION ACT 2004 S1

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3

IMMIGRATION

Leave to remain

Revoked - Visit to United Kingdom - United Kingdom authorities informed that re-entry would be refused - Suspicion of trafficking - Whether ground moot as applicant outside jurisdiction with no right of entitlement to obtain new visa - Subsequent refusal of application for visa with reference to immigration history - Absence of prosecution for trafficking - Whether sufficient continuing live issue - Whether gardaí acted lawfully in informing United Kingdom authorities of decision to revoke leave - Whether power to revoke leave can be exercised in respect of someone outside jurisdiction - Minimum procedural rights - Right to be notified and heard - Goold v Collins [2004] IESC 38 (Unrep, SC, 12/7/2004) and K v Minister for Justice [2008] IEHC 35 (Unrep, Charleton J, 20/2/2008) considered - Immigration Act 2004 (No 1), s 4 - Certiorari granted (2007/1028JR - Cooke J - 14/1/2009) [2009] IEHC 24

C(J) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT OF

MR JUSTICE COOKE

delivered on the 14th day of January, 2009

1 The applicant in this case had been lawfully in the State since, apparently, 2002 on foot of a visa to enter the State, a permission to remain under section 4 of the act of 2004 which had been renewed on a number of occasions until October 2007, and he had a current work permit for employment with an employer in County Meath. He left of the State to visit the United Kingdom on the 8th February 2007 when he had no visa to enter that jurisdiction and no authorisation to be there. On his return through Belfast on the 10th February 2007 he was detained by United Kingdom immigration authorities. He was in the company of two young female students who had been reported to the United Kingdom police as having gone missing from a language school in England. Having seen the applicant's permission to be in this country it is clear that the United Kingdom authorities made some form of informal contact, probably verbal, with the Garda National Immigration Bureau in Dublin (G.N.I.B) on the 10th February 2007.

2 According to the endorsement on the applicant's Chinese passport, the United Kingdom authorities were apparently informed on that day that the "L.T.R" (leave to remain) had been revoked on the 10th February 2007 by Detective Inspector P. Ryan. On the 12th February 2007 there was then an exchange of faxes between a Mr Dower of the United Kingdom immigration authorities in Belfast and Detective Inspector Tallon in Dublin. It seems likely that Mr Dower's fax was sent first because at the bottom of his letter his fax number and email address have been written down and the email address then appears typed into the letter written by Inspector Tallon on the same day.

3 In his letter inspector Tallon inform informs the United Kingdom authorities as follows:

"I refer to the above Chinese national currently held in detention in the U.K., this gentleman is not acceptable back in Ireland and if he presents at the frontiers of the State he will be refused permission to enter the State for the following reasons:"

1. He was detected by the U.K. IS in Belfast facilitating the trafficking of two People's Republic of China national minors who had been reported missing in the U.K. We view human trafficking as a gravely serious crime traffic particularly when the act is committed to traffic persons from the United Kingdom effecting the integrity of the common travel area of our citizens between our two jurisdictions and that the persons being trafficked were missing children.

4 His permission to remain in the State is therefore no longer valid. Our refusal is not a permanent bar to re-entry however he should first apply for a visa at our Embassy in Beijing before any attempt is made to re-enter the State."

5 Shortly afterwards the United Kingdom authorities returned the applicant to China as a person who had no visa to enter or be in the United Kingdom. It is probably reasonable to infer from this information that it was the Irish decision to revoke the permission to remain in the State and to indicate to the United Kingdom authorities that if the applicant presented himself at the frontier of the State he would be refused entry, that this provoked the deportation of the applicant from the United Kingdom or at least heavily influenced the decision taken by the United Kingdom authorities. Had the Irish authorities not done so it is possible to speculate that the United Kingdom authorities would probably either have tried the applicant for the trafficking offence of which he was suspected or allowed him to return to this jurisdiction so that he could be dealt with by the G.N.I.B. But it is also clear that the United Kingdom authorities had no necessary obligation to do...