T. A. (Minor Suing Through His Mother and Next Friend C. A.) v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 532 |
| Date | 14 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | [2013 No. 751 JR] |
BETWEEN
AND
[2014] IEHC 532
THE HIGH COURT
Asylum - Mother and son - Refugee status - Applications for subsidiary protection - Judicial review - Plenary proceedings more appropriate procedure to obtain the relief sought - Formal permission to be in the State during the subsidiary protection process - Unlawful procedures for determining subsidiary protection - Prohibition of employment and social welfare - Illegality of "direct provision" - Human rights
Facts The applicant mother is a Ugandan national. She arrived in Ireland in April 2010 and applied for asylum upon arrival. She gave birth to her son in Ireland in January 2011. Her asylum application was based on an alleged fear of female genital mutilation within the Ugandan community, yet she was refused refugee status owing to negative credibility findings. Subsequently, she applied for subsidiary protection and humanitarian leave to remain for herself and her son. Initially she was placed in an accommodation centre in Dublin pending her subsidiary protection application; however she was later moved to Galway where she lived for three and a half years. She sought to challenge the decisions of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal by way of judicial review. She stressed there was an absence of formal permission to be in the State during the subsidiary protection process; that unlawful procedures were in place to determine subsidiary protection applications; she took issue with the ban on employment and social welfare payments and argued the "direct provision" system was illegal and ultra vires. "Direct provision" is a cashless provision of material support offered by the State to protection applicants in order to meet their basic needs i.e. accommodation, food, education for those under 18, healthcare and a small weekly allowance known as the DPA. The applicants complained of the current system, with particular reference to the lack of mainstream social welfare payments, prohibition on employment and the detailed rules applied in accommodation centres. They believed the "direct provision" system was in breach of the principle of the separation of powers; that it breached/interfered with constitutional and fundamental human rights and that the process was unlawful in relation to access to social welfare and the employment market.
Held The judge was not able to discern from s.7A Refugee Act 1996 any intention to establish a body which would have responsibility to oversee the material needs of applicants. He said s.7A was clear – its purpose was to report on the operation of the Refugee Act 1996. He stressed the Act made no provision for the manner in which applicants receive support, thus no illegality attached to the decision of the Minister of Justice. The judge highlighted the change to the "direct provision" scheme and access to social welfare. He explained in 2004 the government amended the social welfare code to exclude asylum seekers - a recipient had to be habitually resident in the State at the time of their application. Under s. 246 (7) (b) and (c) Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 the applicants were not habitually resident. They were therefore statutorily prevented from satisfying the habitual residence condition and excluded from receiving mainstream social assistance payments. In relation to the employability of the applicant, the judge referred to Regulation 4 (7)(b) European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013 whereby an applicant for subsidiary protection is prohibited from seeking/entering employment or carrying on any business, trade or profession. The applicant described the negative effects she had been subjected to as a result of the "direct provision" system. The respondents vehemently denied the allegations. A dispute as to fact ultimately arose. The judge said the applicants could have sought a plenary hearing but did not; they could have requested cross examination of the respondents on their affidavits but did not; they could have filed affidavits by suitably qualified persons as to the effects of "direct provision" but they did not. The judge ruled the applicants thereby failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that "direct provision" had the negative effects alleged. The judge held the applicants failed to establish that "direct provision" breached their human rights (arising under the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights). He believed some of the RIA House Rules and the complaints handling procedure were unlawful. He said the applicant"s human rights claim ultimately failed because they pursued the claim without oral evidence and they did not cross examine the respondent"s witnesses who denied that direct provision was harmful. The judge invited the parties to address the Court on what form of Order should issue to reflect the court"s decisions.
EEC DIR 33/2013
EEC DIR 9/2003
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S7(A)
HOWARD & ORS v CMSRS OF PUBLIC WORKS 1994 1 IR 101 1993/3/683
SOCIAL WELFARE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 2005 S189
SOCIAL WELFARE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 2005 S246(7)(B)
SOCIAL WELFARE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 2005 S246(7)(C)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S9(4)
EUROPEAN UNION (SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION) REGS 2013 SI 426/2013 REG 4(7)(B)
M (M) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS (NO 3) UNREP HOGAN 23.1.2013 2013/31/9140 2013 IEHC 9
COOKE v WALSH 1984 IR 710 1983 ILRM 429 1983/8/2150
DOS SANTOS & ORS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP MCDERMOTT 19.11.2014 2014 IEHC 559
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1
SOCIAL WELFARE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 2005 S246
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CONSTITUTION ART 41
CONSTITUTION ART 42.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 3
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 14
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS PROTOCOL 4 ART 2
EEC DIR 83/2004
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 1
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 3
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 4
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 7
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 15
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 20
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 21
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 24
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 41
A L J & ORS, IN RE 2013 NIQB 88
MIN FOR JUSTICE v RETTINGER 2010 3 IR 783 2011 1 ILRM 157 2010/36/8976 2010 IESC 45
S (MS) v BELGIUM 2011 53 EHRR 2 31 BHRC 313 2011 INLR 533 2011 ECHR 108
WILSON v FIRST COUNTY TRUST LTD (NO 2) 2003 UKHL 40 2004 1 AC 816 2003 3 WLR 568 2003 4 AER 97 2003 HRLR 33
A & ORS v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT 2004 UKHL 56 2005 2 AC 68 2005 2 WLR 87 2005 3 AER 169
R v HALPIN 1975 QB 907 1975 3 WLR 260 1975 2 AER 1124 1975 61 CAR 97 1975 CRIM LR 453
EASTERN HEALTH BOARD v K (M) 1999 2 IR 99 1999 2 ILRM 321 2000/6/2188
CONSTITUTION ART 15.2
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD ART 3
CONSTITUTION ART 42
O (O) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2004 4 IR 426 2004/39/9098 2004 IEHC 426
CHAPMAN v UNITED KINGDOM 2001 33 EHRR 18 10 BHRC 48 (APPLICATION NO 27238/95)
PRETTY v UNITED KINGDOM 2002 2 FLR 45 2002 2 FCR 97 2002 35 EHRR 1 12 BHRC 149 2002 66 BMLR 147 2002 FAM LAW 588 2002 152 NLJ 707 (APPLICATION NO 2346/02)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8(1)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8(2)
NORRIS v AG 1984 IR 36
KENNEDY v IRELAND 1987 IR 587 1988 ILRM 472 1988/2/367
M v DRURY 1994 2 IR 8 1995 1 ILRM 108 1994/11/3447
KANE v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1988 IR 757 1988/2/343
DPP v KENNY 1990 2 IR 124 1990 ILRM 569 1990/2/431
HAUGHEY v MORIARTY 1999 3 IR 1
ANSBACHER (CAYMAN) LTD, IN RE 2002 2 IR 517 2002 2 ILRM 491 2002/2/294
MEADOWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2010 2 IR 701 2011 2 ILRM 157 2010 IESC 3
CONSTITUTION ART 40.5
OMAR v GOVERNOR OF CLOVER HILL PRISON 2014 1 ILRM 254 2013/42/12098 2013 IEHC 579
ELECTORAL (AMDT) BILL 1983, IN RE 1984 IR 268
SAHIN v TURKEY 2007 44 EHRR 5 19 BHRC 590 2006 ELR 73 (APPLICATION NO 44774/98)
HRISTOZOV v BULGARIA UNREP ECHR 13.11.2012 (APPLICATION NOS 47039/11 & 358/12)
POK SUN SHUM v MIN FOR JUSTICE 1986 ILRM 593
OSHEKU v IRELAND & ORS 1986 IR 733 1987 ILRM 330 1986/7/1474
O (A) & L (D) v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2003 1 IR 1 2003/31/7267
COSTELLO-ROBERTS v UNITED KINGDOM 1994 1 FCR 65 1995 19 EHRR 112 1994 ELR 1 (APPLICATION NO 13134/87)
M (M) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2013 1 WLR 1259 2012 AER (D) 284 (NOV) (CASE C-277/11)
M (M) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS (NO 3) 2013 1 IR 370 2013/31/9140 2013 IEHC 9
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 51
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PART 3 TITLE 5
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PROTOCOL 21 ART 3
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PROTOCOL 21 ART 4
EEC DIR 85/2005
EEC REG 343/2003
EEC REG 2725/2000
PFLEGER, IN RE 2014 3 CMLR 47 (CASE C-390/12)
O'REILLY v LIMERICK CORP 1989 ILRM 181
NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD v W (H) & W (C) 2001 3 IR 622 2000/13/4960
D (T) & ORS v MIN FOR EDUCATION & ORS 2001 4 IR 259 2001/5/1050 2001 IESC 101
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & HEALTH (AMDT) (NO 2) BILL [2004] 2005 1 IR 10 2005 1 ILRM 401 2005/29/5927 2005 IESC 7
O'DONNELL v SOUTH DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 2011 3 IR 417 2009/44/11163 2007 IEHC 204
SOCIAL WELFARE CONSOLIDATION ACT 2005 S246(7)
KENNEDY v LAW SOCIETY...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryanair DAC v an Taoiseach
...arrangement where legal rights of individuals may fall to be considered and determined. 84 In C.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IEHC 532, the High Court rejected an argument that the executive branch had acted unlawfully by operating the so-called “direct provision” scheme fo......
-
Clare County Council v Bernard McDonagh and Helen McDonagh
...is the full owner, a tenant or a licensee or other form of permissive occupant.” Likewise in CA v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IEHC 532 MacEochaidh J held that the room(s) lawfully allocated to asylum seekers at an asylum reception centre constituted a “dwelling” for the purpos......
-
Wendy Jennings and Adrian O'Connor v an Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
...... JUDGMENT OF Mr Justice David Holland DELIVERED 17 February 2023 ... relevant policy of the Government, the Minister or any Minister of the Government , ... . 90 McGuinness J next cited Tennyson 178 — in which the ... unit types — from small studios through medium-sized to larger clusters. This results in ... in hotel rooms — sometimes sharing with others. There were no cooking facilities. Visitors were ... overall regeneration of the site and a minor reduction in VSC (Vertical Sky Component) of some ... 52 Meadows v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and The Attorney General ......
-
Elijah Burke v The Minister for Education and Skills
...of the State includes the power to establish an ex gratia scheme of this nature…” 126 . In T.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IEHC 532, Mac Eochaidh J., in holding that the system of “direct provision” for housing asylum applicants (also an extra-statutory scheme) was not ultr......
-
The European Convention on Human Rights and Socioeconomic Rights Claims: a Case for the Protection of Basic Socioeconomic Rights through Article 3
...17 78 hornton, supra note 1, p. 16 79 Brems, supra note 7, p. 156 80 Palmer, supra note 6, p. 254 81 CA and TA v Minister for Justice [2014] I.E.H.C. 532 82 O’Donnell v South Dublin Council [2015] I.E.S.C. 28 83 Tanko v Finland, no. 23634/94 (Commission Decision, 19 May 1994) 01 O'Reilly.in......