M.S.R v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,O'Malley J.,Irvine J.
• Judgment Date: 12 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 123
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 12 June 2019

[2019] IESCDET 123

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

O'Malley J.

Irvine J.

BETWEEN

M.S.R.

APPLICANT

AND

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS

RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26th November, 2018

DATE OF ORDER: 4 th February, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 6 th February, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON THE 27 02 2019 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court. In addition, because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, it is also necessary that it be established that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ warranting a direct appeal to this Court.

2 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33 ^rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called “leapfrog appeal” direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions (2017) IESCDET 115. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

3 It should be noted that any ruling in a determination is a decision particular to that application and is final and conclusive only as far as the parties are concerned. The issue calling for the Court's consideration is whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria as above identified. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value relative to the substantive issues, if and when such issues should further arise in a different case. Where leave is granted on any issue, that matter will be disposed of in due course in the substantive decision of the Court.

4 The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in detail.

5 The applicants are a married couple from Pakistan whose separate proceedings were dealt with together in the High Court (see [2018] IEHC 692). The issue raised in their applications for leave to appeal to this Court (dealt with in the one application form) concerns the circumstances in which an international protection decision-maker may be obliged to investigate the authenticity of a document relied upon by the person claiming protection.

6 The single point put forward in the application is that recent decisions of the Court of Appeal (in AO v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IECA 51) and the High Court (in TT (Zimbabwe) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2017] IEHC 750 and AMC...