P. E. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 238
• Docket Number: [No. 670 J.R./2005]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 16 May 2007

[2007] IEHC 238

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 670 J.R./2005]

E (P) (A MINOR) v MIN FOR JUSTICE

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

P. E. A MINOR SUING BY HIS PASTOR AND NEXT FRIEND P. I. A.

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(6)(a)

KOUAYPE v MIN FOR JUSTICE & REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (EAMES) UNREP CLARKE 9.11.2005 2005/35/7364 2005 IEHC 380

HAMURARI v MIN JUSTICE UNREP CLARKE 9.11.2005 2005 IEHC 463

IMMIGRATION LAW

Deportation

Judicial review - Obligation to consider age of applicant - Ambiguity in evidence before Minister - No requirement to carry out investigation - No separate procedure for minors - Kouaype v Minister for Justice [1005] IEHC 380 (Unrep,Clarke J, 9/11/2005) and Hamurari v Minister for Justice [2005] IEHC 463 (Unrep, Clarke J, 9/11/2005) considered - Immigration Act 1999 (No 22), s 3 - Application refused (2005/670JR - Hedigan J - 16/5/2007) [2007] IEHC 238

E(P) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Mr. Justice Hedigan

1 This judgment is circulated in redacted form to avoid identification of the parties

2 This is an application made for judicial review of the deportation order that issued in the applicant's case. He was granted leave by the High Court to apply for an order ofcertiorari on two grounds:

3 (i) The Minister made a decision to deport the applicant without considering his age and the true effect of deportation upon him.

4 (ii) That there was ambiguity in the submissions made to the Minister as to the applicant's age.

5 The applicant's case is that he was deemed to be an adult for the purposes of his asylum claim. The case that was made on behalf of the applicant was that the Minister was required to consider the applicant's age under s. 3(6)(a) of the Immigration Act1999. It was argued that he did not do this because he could not do it because the evidence was contradictory or ambiguous or wrong. It was submitted to the court that the report to the Minister which is exhibited at p. 52 of the applicant's book of documents where it dealt with s. 3(6)(a) of the Act stated:

"He is seventeen years old at the time of writing this submission. However it was determined by an authorised officer of the office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that having regard to s. 8(5)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996 as amended Mr. Emmanuel should for the purposes of his asylum claim be treated as an adult because he had a physical appearance and level of maturity of a person older than his stated age."

6 I note that it was not apparently...