N.A. v The chief International Protection Officer

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 10 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 499
• Date: 10 September 2018
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 454 J.R.] [2018 No. 535 J.R.] [2018 No. 551 J.R.] [2018 No. 541 J.R.] [2018 No. 577 J.R.] [2018 No. 517 J.R.] [2018 No. 454 J.R.]

BETWEEN

N.A.

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

F.K.

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

N.M.

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

I.G.

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

J.L.F.G.

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

N.M.

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

[2018] IEHC 499

Humphreys J.

[2018 No. 454 J.R.]

[2018 No. 535 J.R.]

[2018 No. 551 J.R.]

[2018 No. 541 J.R.]

[2018 No. 577 J.R.]

[2018 No. 517 J.R.]

[2018 No. 454 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Stay – Injunction – Public interest – Applicants seeking orders preventing the International Protection Appeals Tribunal from processing their appeals further – Whether the balance of convenience and justice leaned against a stay

Facts: The applicants in each of the six cases brought proceedings making the technical objection that the International Protection Office (IPO) used contractors in the process of coming up with a negative recommendation. At issue was whether the applicants should get the benefit of a stay restraining the International Protection Appeals Tribunal from carrying out its statutory duty to hear their appeals from the IPO recommendations expeditiously. The applicants each sought an order, whether phrased as a stay or an injunction or otherwise, which would have the effect of preventing the tribunal from processing their appeals further. The High Court (Humphreys J) added the tribunal as a notice party in all six cases.

Held by Humphreys J that the balance of convenience and justice leaned massively against a stay in cases such as these. Humphreys J held that the only exception would be for test cases where there is public interest in the issue being determined as a test case and therefore a corresponding public interest in such test cases not becoming moot.

Humphreys J held that because N.A. was a test case, he would restrain the tribunal from further processing the applicant's appeal to the tribunal on the applicant's undertaking to process the proceedings expeditiously and, if an appeal was to be pursued, to apply for leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court in the event of those proceedings being unsuccessful, irrespective of whether the applicant also applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In all of the other cases Humphreys J would refuse the relief by way of a stay or injunction that had been sought.

Relief refused in part.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 10th day of September, 2018

1 The applicants in each of these six cases have brought proceedings making the technical objection that the International Protection Office used contractors in the process of coming up with a negative recommendation. In I.G. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IEHC 682 [2015] 11 JIC 0602 (Unreported, High Court, 6th November, 2015) I refused leave on that purely technical point on the grounds that I considered it to be insubstantial. The Supreme Court on appeal granted leave ( I.G. v. Refugee Applications Commissioner [2018] IESC 25 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 16th May, 2018)). The issue now is whether the present applicants in other cases raising the same or similar points should get the benefit of a stay restraining the International Protection Appeals Tribunal from carrying out its statutory duty to hear their appeals from the IPO recommendations expeditiously.

2 I have received helpful submissions from Mr. Shannon Haynes B.L. for the applicants in N.A., F.K. and N.M. cases from Mr. Paul O'Shea B.L. for the...