Lachheb -v- The Governor of Cloverhill Prison,  IEHC 506 (2016)
|Docket Number:||2016 952 SS|
|Party Name:||Lachheb, The Governor of Cloverhill Prison|
THE HIGH COURT[2016 No. 952 SS]IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUIRY UNDER ARTICLE 40.4.2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND, 1937
MOHAMMED LACHHEB (ALSO KNOWN AS ADAM ALAOUI)APPLICANTAND
THE GOVERNOR OF CLOVERHILL PRISONRESPONDENT
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O’Regan delivered on the 25th day of August, 2016
The within matter is an inquiry into the detention of the applicant, pursuant to Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution. He is currently held in Cloverhill prison and has been held since the 5th of August, 2016, pursuant to an immigration detention warrant, which was executed by Det. Garda Liam Lawton on the 5th of August, 2016.
There is a certificate by the respondent of the 25th of August, 2016, confirming that the detention of the applicant is indeed pursuant to that warrant.
In that warrant, the applicant is refused permission to land, pursuant to s. 4(3) of the Immigration Act 2004. Under the provisions of the Act, he can be detained for a period not exceeding eight weeks until he is removed from the State.
The applicant's claim is to the effect that there is an error on the face of the warrant, which renders it fatal in that reference is made to a refusal for permission to land as opposed to refusal for permission to be in the State. That is as a consequence of the fact that it is common case that the applicant has been in the State since the 4th of June, 2016.
In response to the applicant's claim, the respondent accepts that permission to land is distinct from permission to be in the State. The difference between the parties is the suggestion by the State that, in order to be, you must first have permission to land. The applicant does not accept that contingency event.
The State claims that you cannot look at s. 4(1) in isolation - you have to have general regard to the balance of the section.
Insofar as the case law is concerned, of the numerous cases that I have been referred to, in the limited circumstances of the within application, there are only three which I believe are particularly germane. These include the judgment of Mr. Justice Hardiman's of the 10th of November, 2015, in Hussein v. The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform  IESC 104, which I referred the applicant to earlier. This decision considered s.4(10) of the Act dealing with the provisions which the immigration officer must have in relation to exercising his decision to grant a permission or not.
The applicant suggests that by...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL