Okenla v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform and Others
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr Justice Michael Peart |
Judgment Date | 10 February 2005 |
Neutral Citation | [2005] IEHC 37 |
Docket Number | Record Number:No. 255 JR/2003 |
Court | High Court |
Date | 10 February 2005 |
BETWEEN:
AND
[2005] IEHC 37
THE HIGH COURT
IMMIGRATION
Deportation
Constitutional right of access to court - Notification of proposed deportation order - Right to bring judicial review proceedings - Adebayo v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2004] IEHC 359 (Unreported, High Court, Peart J, 27/10/2004) distinguished - Botusha v Minister for Justice (Unreported, High Court, Peart J, 29/10/ 2003) considered - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29), s 5 - Time for bringing application extended, application for leave to apply for judicial review granted, injunction refused (2003/255JR - Peart J - 10/2/2005) [2005] IEHC 37
OKENLA v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS
ADEBAYO v COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP PEART 27.10.2004 2004/1/60
BUTUSHA v MIN JUSTICE UNREP PEART 29.10.2003 2003/7/1531
The experience of having listened to the affidavits opened to the Court in this case, the arguments ably made by Counsel on both sides, and my re-reading of those affidavits and exhibits for the purpose of deciding whether to grant leave in this case, has immediately put in mind the above quotation. Seldom has it seemed so apt in a legal context. Even allowing for the fact that some of the content of the respondents” replying affidavit is to be regarded as hearsay, and perhaps inadmissible on a certain view of the nature of the Court's decision in the event that leave be refused, it is impossible to escape a conclusion that in the months and years leading up to the final events which give rise to the present application, this applicant, under various different versions of his name, and indeed possibly under different names, and using different passports, has played “ducks and drakes” with the immigration and asylum procedures in this State. If sympathy on the part of the Court for what befell him eventually was a requirement of justice, he would surely be entitled to none.
I do not propose to set out, or perhaps I should say more accurately, attempt to set out in any detail the web of deceit and intrigue indulged in by this applicant lest by so doing I stray upon the ground to be travelled over again in the hearing of the substantive application which with great hesitation and some regret I feel compelled to allow. I will add for the sake of completeness that no view I have formed as to the bona fides of this applicant and the lack of candour, honesty and openness which he has shown in his dealings with the agencies of this State, should in any way influence any Judge called upon to hear the substantive application, and who will have to form his/her own view.
The only merit which I can see in the present application arises from a point in time after the involvement of the applicant's present solicitors. It would appear that the notification of the proposal to make a deportation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Minister for Justice v Stapleton
...alleged offences - Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2002] EWHC2668 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 1979considered; Minister for Justice v R(S) [2005] IEHC 37 (Unrep, Peart J, 15/11/2005) and F(J) v DPP [2005] IEHC 382 (Unrep, Peart J,16/11/2005) followed - European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 (No 45......