N O v Minister for Justice & Equality and ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Dunne J.
• Judgment Date: 27 February 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IESCDET 29
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 27 February 2018

[2018] IESCDET 29

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

BETWEEN

N O

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Supreme Court – Determination – Appellate function – Application for leave to appeal from Court of Appeal

The applicant had applied under art 34.5.3 of the Constitution seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal handed down in July 2017. The applicant had sought to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of her order for deportation following the dismissal of her asylum and subsidiary protection claims.

The Court was not prepared to grant leave to appeal to the applicant. The applicant had not demonstrated that the Court of Appeal had erred by holding the applicant lacked locus standi and any judicial review proceedings would be on a hypothetical point only. In any event, the application was made out of time which was sufficient to decide the matter.

Application dismissed.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

1. ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 19th July, 2017

DATE OF ORDER: 19th July, 2017

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 19th July, 2017

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 4th September, 2017 AND WAS NOT IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 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 33rd 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. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice 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.

3 In that context it should be noted that the respondent opposes the grant of leave.

Decision:

4 The applicant claims that judicial review, as applied in this State in her case, does not provide for a full appeal on the merits, and consequently cannot amount to an ‘effective remedy’ as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights &...