M.S.R (Pakistan) v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal ; M.S. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal No.2
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys |
| Judgment Date | 04 February 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 60 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 386 J.R.] |
| Date | 04 February 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 60
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Humphreys J.
[2018 No. 386 J.R.]
[2018 No. 437 J.R.]
AND
AND
(No. 2)
Immigration and asylum – Protection claims – European Convention law – Applicants seeking asylum – What are the ‘special circumstances’ which would compel an International Protection decision-maker to engage in an investigation into the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for International Protection
Facts: The High Court (Humphreys J), in M.S.R. (Pakistan) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal (No. 1) [2018] IEHC 692, refused certiorari of IPAT decisions which refused the applicants’ protection claims. The applicants, who are a married couple, sought leave to appeal. The question proposed by both applicants was “what are the ‘special circumstances’ as set out by the Court of Appeal in A.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal which would compel an International Protection decision-maker to engage in an investigation into the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for International Protection”.
Held by Humphreys J that the alleged obligation to investigate documents was not pleaded, so it was not an appropriate point on which the applicants could appeal. Humphreys J held that the judgment made no reference to the A.O. decision anyway so the point could hardly arise out of that judgment and thus was not appropriate for leave to appeal. Humphreys J held that the proposed question involved a fundamental misunderstanding of European Convention law.
Humphreys J held that the applications would be refused.
Applications refused.
In M.S.R. (Pakistan) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal (No. 1) [2018] IEHC 692 [2018] 11 JIC 2603 (Unreported, High Court, 26th November, 2018), I refused certiorari of IPAT decisions which refused the applicants” protection claims. The applicants, who are a married couple, now seek leave to appeal.
I have considered the caselaw on leave to appeal as set out in Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250 (Unreported, MacMenamin J., 13th November, 2006) and Arklow Holidays v. An Bord Pleanála [2008] IEHC 2, per Clarke J. (as he then was). I have also discussed these criteria in a number of cases, including S.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2016] IEHC 646 [2016] 11 JIC 1404 (Unreported, High Court, 14th November, 2016) (para. 2), and Y.Y. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2017] IEHC 185 [2017] 3 JIC 2405 (Unreported, High Court, 24th March, 2017) (para. 72). I have received helpful submissions from Mr. Eamonn Dornan B.L. for the husband, Mr. Paul O'Shea B.L. for the wife, and from Ms. Eva Humphreys B.L. for the respondents.
The question proposed by both applicants is ‘ what are the “special circumstances” as set out by the Court of Appeal in A.O. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal which would compel an International Protection decision-maker to engage in an investigation into the authenticity of a document relied on by an applicant for International Protection’.
There are a number of reasons why these applications cannot succeed.
Firstly, the fundamental problem is that the alleged obligation to investigate documents was not pleaded (see para. 10 of the No. 1 judgment). So it is not an appropriate point on which the applicants can appeal.
Secondly, the judgment makes no reference to the A.O. decision anyway so the point can hardly...
To continue reading
Request your trial