SAAE -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality, [2017] IEHC 72 (2017)

Docket Number:2017 777 JR
Party Name:SAAE, The Minister for Justice and Equality
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW[2016 No. 777 J.R.]

BETWEEN

S.A.A.E.APPLICANTAND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITYRESPONDENT(No. 2)

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 13th day of February, 2017

  1. In S.A.A.E. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2016] IEHC 573 (Unreported, High Court, 19th October, 2016) I refused leave to the applicant for judicial review of a deportation order, notification letter and associated decisions. The applicant then sought leave to appeal in relation to two questions. One question overlapped with another case and I have postponed consideration of it. I am now considering the application in relation to the other question.

  2. Mr. Conor Power S.C. (with Mr. James Buckley B.L.) on behalf of the applicant seeks leave to appeal on the basis of the question of whether “a deportation order is lawful which does not give a date for the applicant to comply with it and has such a date been lawfully identified in this case.” I have also heard from Mr. Dermot Manning B.L. on behalf of the respondent.

  3. I have considered the case law relating to the criteria for the grant of leave to appeal including Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250 (MacMenamin J.) As outlined in S.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2016] IEHC 646 (Unreported, High Court, 21st November, 2016), to the factors set out in that case I would add four further criteria, as follows:

    (i). The application for leave to appeal should be made promptly and ideally within the normal appeal period (10 days in the case of a leave application and 28 days in the case of a substantive decision). The applicant has applied promptly in the present application.

    (ii). The question of law should be one which is actually determinative of the proceedings, not one which if answered differently would leave the result of the case unchanged.

    (iii). The grant of leave should provide some added value to any matters already before the Court of Appeal; thus the fact that an issue is independently the subject of a pending appeal would tend to dilute the public interest in the point being brought before that court a second time.

    (iv). The question must be formulated with precision in a manner that indicates how it is determinative of the proceedings and should not invite a discursive, roving, response from the Court of Appeal.

  4. Mr. Power submits that the deportation order does not specify a date and that such a requirement is a sine qua non. An order...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL