A.A.A & ors -v- Minister for Justice and Equality & ors,  IEHC 124 (2014)
|Docket Number:||2011 1007 JR|
|Party Name:||A.A.A & ors, Minister for Justice and Equality & ors|
THE HIGH COURTJUDICIAL REVIEW[2011 No. 1007 J.R.]BETWEENA.A.A. AND J.A. (AN INFANT SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.A.A.), AND E.A.A. (AN INFANT SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.A.A.), AND S.A.A. (AN INFANT SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND A.A.A.)APPLICANTSANDTHE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALRESPONDENTSJUDGMENT of Mr. Justice McDermott delivered on the 14th day of March, 20141. The court has already delivered judgment in this matter  IEHC 422, refusing an order of certiorari quashing the deportation orders in respect of the applicants made 27th September, 2011. The sole ground upon which leave to apply for judicial review was granted by Cooke J. on 17th May, 2012, was:-“The deportation orders are invalid by reason of the first named respondent not having personally considered whether the State’s non-refoulement obligations would be breached by the deportation of the applicants.”2. The applicants were deported in accordance with these orders following the refusal of an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining deportation on 13th December, 2011.3. The court was satisfied that the Carltona principle was applicable to the determination of the prohibition of refoulement issue under s. 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, and held that the deportation orders were lawfully made notwithstanding that they were not made personally by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The applicants have applied to the court for a certificate that the courts judgment 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 Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of s. 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, which provides:-“The determination of the High Court of an application…for…judicial review shall be final and no appeal shall lie from the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court…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 Supreme Court.”4. The principles applicable to the exercise of this jurisdiction were identified by MacMenamin J. in Glancre Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála  IEHC 205 as follows:-“1. The requirement goes substantially further than that a point of law...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL