M.A.K. & M.T.B. & K.B. & S.D. v Minister for Justice and Equality
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Ms. Justice O'Regan |
Judgment Date | 13 March 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] IEHC 168 |
Date | 13 March 2017 |
Court | High Court |
Docket Number | [2017 No. 123 J.R.] [2017 No. 175 J.R.] [2017 No. 176 J.R.] [2017 No. 177 J.R.] |
[2017] IEHC 168
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
O'Regan J.
[2017 No. 123 J.R.]
[2017 No. 175 J.R.]
[2017 No. 176 J.R.]
[2017 No. 177 J.R.]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TRAFFICKING ACT, 2000 (AS AMENDED)
Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – S. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act, 2000 – S. 3 (1) of the Immigration Act, 1999 – Deportation order – Judicial review – Certiorari
Facts: The applicants sought leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the deportation order made by the respondent. The applicants contended that there was failure to comply with s. 3(1) of the Immigration Act, 1999 as the deportation order did not mention the date of deportation.
Ms. Justice O'Regan refused to grant leave to the applicants. The Court held that the legal issue identified by the applicants had already been decided by the Supreme Court in the P, L & B v Minister for Justice [2001] IEHC 107 to the effect that the deportation order and the letter of notice should be read together for the fulfilment of the statutory requirement under s. 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999. The Court held that it was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in that regard.
Each of the applicant's seek leave by way of ex parte docket to apply for an order for certiorari seeking to quash a deportation order of 13th January 2017 (in respect of three of them) and 12th December 2016 together with an injunction restraining the deportation pending the determination of the proceedings.
The proposed statement of grounds in each matter on which the relief is claimed are:—
a. The deportation order failed to comply with s. 3(1) of the Immigration Act, 1999 in that it failed to specify the date within the order when the applicant is to leave the State.
b. By failing to specify the time on the order the respondent acted ultra vires and this cannot be cured by incorporating the date on some other document.
c. The deportation order contains an error on the act of the record.
The applicant has tendered submissions bearing date 9th February, 2017 and in those submissions the legal question or issue to be addressed is identified as:—
'Is the deportation order legal in circumstances where it fails to specify a date by which the applicant must leave the State?'
The submissions acknowledge the Supreme Court decision in P, L & B v. Minister for Justice [2001] IESC 107. This was an appeal from the High Court and one of the questions posed of the Supreme Court was:—
'Is the combination of the deportation order and letter of notice taken together sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of s. 3 of the Act of 1999 aforesaid and in particular subs. 3(b) (ii), subss. (6) and (7)?'
The response by Hardiman J. in the Supreme Court on behalf of a five-member Court was brief and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gayle v Governor of the Duchas Centre
...determinative against the applicant. The decision was followed by O'Regan J. in M.A.K. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2017] IEHC 168 in refusing leave on this point. The same conclusion was ultimately arrived at by Faherty J. in Kumar v. Minister for Justice, Equality an......
-
S.E. v Minister for Justice and Equality
...on the question. (See Parvais v. Garda Commissioner [2016] IEHC 772; MAK and Others v. Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2017] IEHC 168; Kumar v. Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2016] IEHC Decision 19 At first sight the points here might appear narrow, but this is......