N Y v The Chief International Protection Officer and ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,Dunne J.,Charleton J.
• Judgment Date: 05 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 159
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 05 July 2019

[2019] IESCDET 159

SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

O'Donnell J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT 1999

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 (AS AMENDED)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2015

BETWEEN

N Y

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENTS

AND

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOTICE PARTY

RESULT: The Court grants 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 OR RULING: 14 th January, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 28 th January, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 7 th March, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 27 th March, 2019 AND WAS 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 Thirty-third 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, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.

2 The application for leave herein and the respondent's notice are both published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law). In addition, the High Court (Barrett J.) delivered a comprehensive judgment on 14 January 2019, which itself is publicly available (see [2019] IEHC 21). In the circumstances, it is not proposed to set out the facts in any greater detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Decision

3 The broad and fundamental issue raised in...