M.O.S.H (Pakistan) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal and Others

 
FREE EXCERPT

[2015] IEHC 331

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 378 J.R./2011]
H (MOS) [Pakistan] v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

M.O.S.H (PAKISTAN)
APPLICANT

AND

THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND
RESPONDENTS

2011/378JR - Eagar - High - 21/5/2015 - 2015 IEHC 331

Asylum – Immigration & Nationality – The Refugee Appeals Tribunal – S. 5(3) (a) Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act 2000 – Leave to appeal – Test of irrationality in judicial review

Facts: Following the judgment on an application for judicial review quashing the decision of the first named respondent and affirming the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner thereby remitting the appeal for determination de novo by the first named respondent, the respondents now sought a certificate for grant of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was based on the ground of existence of question of public importance which was whether the interpretation of rationality by the Court in relation to the assessment of credibility accorded with the test decided by Supreme Court in the State (Keegan) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642 and other High Court cases.

Mr. Justice Robert Eagar refused to grant a certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the appropriate test of irrationality in judicial review would be limited to see whether the impugned decision was devoid of fundamental reason and common sense on the face of it. The jurisdiction of the Court in such cases would be to consider whether there was any disregard to fair procedures of law or the decision making authority had acted arbitrarily and exceeded its jurisdiction.

1

1. On the 27 th March 2015 this Court gave judgment on an application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the first named respondent to affirm the recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and made an order remitting the appeal of the applicant for a determination de novo by a separate member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

2

2. The respondent now applies under s. 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 for a certificate of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judgment "involves a point of law of exceptional public importance" and that "it is desirable in the public interest that such an appeal be taken". The criteria to be applied by this Court in ruling on the application for a certificate under s. 5(3)(a) are not in dispute.

3

3. Following from the decisions of Cooke J. in I.R. v. The Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform & Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2009] IEHC 510 and the decision of Clarke J. in Arklow Holidays v. An Bord Pleanala [2007] 4 I.R. 112 I say the following principles appear to apply:-

1

) The case must raise a point of law of exceptional public importance.

2

) The area of law involved must be uncertain such that it is in the common good that the uncertainty be resolved for the benefit of future cases.

3

) That it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeal.

4

) The uncertainty as to the point of law must be genuine and not merely a difficulty in predicting the outcome of the applicant' arguments.

5

) The point of law must arise out of the court's decision and not merely out of some discussion at the hearing.

6

) The requirements of exceptional public importance and the desirability of an appeal in the public interest are cumulative requirements.

7

) The importance of the point must be public in nature and must therefore transcend well beyond the individual facts and the parties of a given case.

8

) The requirement that the court be satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeal is a separate and independent requirement from the requirement that the point of law is one of exceptional importance. On that basis even if it can be argued that the law in a particular area is uncertain the court may not on the basis, inter alia, of time or costs consider that it is an appropriate case to...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL