Q (N X) v Refugee Applications Commissioner & Min for Justice

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Cooke
Judgment Date06 May 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] IEHC 218
Docket Number[No. 1431 J.R./ 2007]
CourtHigh Court
Date06 May 2009

[2009] IEHC 218

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1431 J.R./ 2007]
Q (N X) v Refugee Applications Commissioner & Min for Justice
BETWEEN/
N.X.Q.
APPLICANT

AND

REFUGEE APPLICATIONS COMMISSIONER AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY & LAW REFORM
RESPONDENTS

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13

RSC O.15

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)(A)

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S17(7)

K (G) & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2002 2 IR 418 2002 1 ILRM 401 2001/13/3557

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5

A (F) & A (B) v REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL & ORS UNREP PEART 27.7.2007 2007/1/188 2007 IEHC 290

IMMIGRATION

Asylum

Judicial review - Leave - Delay - Extension of time - Good and sufficient reason to grant extension of time - Applicant's solicitor ceased to practice - Applicant unable to obtain legal representation due to financial constraints - No relationship of reciprocity between length of delay to be excused and strength of applicant's case - Whether good and sufficient reason to grant extension of time - Whether strength of applicant's case relevant when considering delay - A v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2007] IEHC 290 (Unreported, High Court, Peart J, 27th July 2007) and GK v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2002] 2 IR 418 considered - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17) ss 13 and 17- Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (No 29) s 5- Extension of time refused (2007/1431JR - Cooke J - 6/5/2009) [2009] IEHC 218

Q (NX) v Refugee Applications Commissioner

Facts: The first named applicant, who was subsequently joined in the proceedings by her daughter and nephew sought leave to apply for an of order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the report and recommendation made under s. 13 of the Refugee Act, 1996 by the first named respondent on 29 October 2004 and the decision of the second named respondent given on appeal against that report on 18 March 2005. The present proceedings were not initiated until 25 October 2007 and consequently, the court sought submissions on the issue as to whether there existed in this case good and sufficient reason to extend time in order to enable the present application for leave to be entertained by the court. The applicant sought to explain the delay by stating that her solicitor refused to act for her due to lack of finances on the part of the applicant but did write to the Tribunal on her behalf seeking a rehearing. In August 2005, the applicant learned that her solicitor had ceased practice and in March 2006 she contacted the Refugee Legal Service, who refused to act for her but did write to the Minister on 17 August 2006, making a formal request on her behalf pursuant to s. 17(7) of the Act of 1996 to have the applicant readmitted to the asylum process. Subsequently on 31 July 2007, the applicant made contact with her present solicitor, who agreed to act on a pro bono basis.

Held by Cooke J. in refusing to grant an extension of time: That the delay involved in this case as exceptionally and inordinately long. The applicant did not have an intention to pursue judicial review proceedings from the outset. On the basis of legal advice, the applicant chose to opt for the alternative course of an application under s. 17(7) of the Refugee Act, 1996 to be re-admitted to the asylum process. The fact that upon a change of solicitor, the applicant’s new representation was willing to act on a pro bono basis and she received advice that the decision of the Tribunal might be open to challenge as flawed, could not create, after a lapse of two years, a good and sufficient reason for extending time. The delay on the part of the applicant was not excused.

Reporter: L.O’S.

JUDGMENT of
Mr. Justice Cooke
delivered on the 6th day of May, 2009
1

1. By an originating notice of motion dated 25th October, 2007 issued from the Central Office of the High Court on 1st November, 2007, the above first named applicant commenced the present application for leave to seek judicial review by way of, inter alia, orders of certiorari to quash the Report and Recommendation made under s.13 of the Refugee Act 1996 by the first named respondent, (the "Commissioner"), on 29th October, 2004 and the decision of the second named respondent, (the "Tribunal") given on appeal against that report on 18th March, 2005.

2

2. The first named applicant is a national of Somalia who arrived in the State in September, 2003 and applied for asylum on the 14th of that month. She included in her application her daughter, I.C.A. and her nephew C.X.C.. For the sake of simplicity I will refer to the three applicant parties as, respectively, "the applicant", the "applicant's daughter" and the "applicant's nephew". In the section 13 Report of 29th October, 2004 the Commissioner found that; "Due to the credibility issues outlined in this report the applicant has failed to demonstrate a well founded fear and forward looking fear of persecution in Somalia for herself and the minors named in this application".

3

3. The applicant's nephew was born on 10th October, 1986 and thus attained the age of 18 years on 10th October 2004, that is, shortly before the date of the Commissioner's section 13 Report and after the two interviews held on 8th July, and 24th September 2004, on which the Report was based. The applicant's daughter was stated in the original asylum application to have been born on 11th March, 1988 and so would have reached 18 years on 11th March, 2006. However, following the rejection of the applicant's joint application for asylum in the State, the applicant's daughter went to the United Kingdom where she applied for asylum under a different name, giving her date of birth as 31st December, 1998. She was returned to this country by the United Kingdom authorities on 25th October, 2007, but if that is her correct date of birth, she attained the age of 18 on 31st December, 2006.

4

4. These dates of 18th birthdays are relevant to this application because on 5th March, 2009 the applicant brought a motion seeking an order "to be joined in the proceedings by her daughter and nephew" and for liberty to amend the statement of grounds. In effect, these amendments sought to include, by way of proposed reliefs, orders of certiorari to quash the same decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal in so far as they related to the daughter and nephew and to add two new grounds as grounds numbers 26 and 27. These grounds are to the effect that the two decisions in question were unlawful because they purported to apply to the applicant's nephew as a dependant of the applicant when he was over 18 years at the time of the making of each of the decisions.

5

5. Having heard submissions on this initial motion the court expressed the view that the joinder of the additional parties was probably unnecessary in practical terms because, if the grounds originally advanced and which were to be adopted and relied upon by the two applicants were well founded, the contested decision of the Tribunal would be quashed with the result that there would be no basis upon which the Minister could refuse a declaration of refugee status or make a deportation order against any one of the three persons included in the asylum application, until a new decision by the Tribunal was made. Nevertheless, on the basis that all three had been parties to the asylum application and had been covered by the two contested decisions; and because no new case of any substance was proposed to be advanced which was not already raised in the original application, the Court decided to grant the application to join the additional parties in the present proceedings. In the sense of Order 15 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the three applicants seek to assert the same rights to relief arising out of the same circumstances and as against the same contested decisions, such that the issues can be more effectively dealt with in the single proceeding already commenced and ready for hearing. The court considered that the two new grounds, numbers 26 and 27, were unlikely to constitute substantial grounds for the grant of relief in themselves given that the mere fact that the applicant's nephew had reached the age of 18 years did not mean that he was no longer "a dependant" particularly when, after his 18th birthday, he had taken no step before either the Commissioner or the Tribunal to so assert.

6

6. Having so ruled and having regard to the obvious substantial lapse of time between the adoption of the two contested decisions of October 2004, and March 2005, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Khaled Islam Khattak v Refugees Appeals Tribunal and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 27 June 2012
    ...31 2013 AER (D) 74 (FEB) EEC DIR 2005/85 ART 39 Q (NX) v REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 6.5.2009 2009/47/11726 2009 IEHC 218 DONEGAN v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL & ORS 2012 2 ILRM 233 2012 IESC 18 B (M) (A MINOR) & ORS [NIGERIA] v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP CLARK 30.7.2010 201......
  • O (S M) v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 7 May 2009
    ...to seek judicial review. Reporter: L.O’S. REFUGEE ACT 1996 S13 Q (NX) v REFUGEE APPLICATIONS CMSR & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 6.5.2009 2009 IEHC 218 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)(A) ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2) ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & S5 & S10 OF ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT