MAK -V- Minister for Justice and Equality,  IEHC 280 (2017)
|Docket Number:||2017 123 JR|
|Party Name:||MAK, Minister for Justice and Equality|
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW [2017 No. 123 J.R.]
M. A. K.APPLICANTAND
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORMRESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O’Regan delivered on the 8th day of May, 2017
The applicants in the above and three allied matters are seeking leave pursuant to the provisions of s. 5 (3) (a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act (2000) to appear the final point which is asserted to be of exceptional and public importance and the public interest:-
“Is a deportation order valid when it fails to specify on its face the date by which the subject must leave the state and remain thereafter out of the state?”
The above query arises out of a judgment delivered by this court on 30th March 2017 when the applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the deportation orders made against each of them by reason of the fact that the dates specified by which the applicants are to leave the State was not mentioned on the face of the deportation orders themselves but rather in the accompany notices.
Applicable legislation and jurisprudence
Section 5 (3) (a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act (2000) provides:-
“The determination of the High Court of an application for leave to apply for judicial review as aforesaid or of an application for such judicial review shall be final and no appeal shall lie from the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal in either case except with the leave of the High Court which leave shall only be granted where the High Court certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeal.”
In the matter of Glancré v. An Bord Pleanala  IEHC 250 MacMenamin J. in the High Court identified the following applicable provisions to the question of whether or not certification should be granted. Notwithstanding that the matter before MacMenamin J. was a planning issue nevertheless the principles so identified relate to comparable provisions as that contained in s. 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act aforesaid. These identified principles are as follows:-
“1. The requirement goes substantially further than that a point of law emerges in or from the case. It must be one of exceptional importance being a clear and significant additional requirement.
The jurisdiction to certify such a case must be exercised sparingly.
The law in question stands in a state...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL