T. A. (Minor Suing Through His Mother and Next Friend C. A.) v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeMr. Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh
Judgment Date14 November 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] IEHC 532
Date14 November 2014

[2014] IEHC 532

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 751 J.R./2013]
A (C) & A (T) (a minor) v Min for Justice & Ors
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

C. A. AND T. A. (A MINOR SUING THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND C. A.)
APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND
RESPONDENTS

EEC DIR 33/2013

EEC DIR 9/2003

REFUGEE ACT 1996 S7(A)

IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S11

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 OF IRELAND & ORS 2002 2 IR 458 2001/13/3693

MACDONNCHA v MIN FOR EDUCATION UNREP HOGAN 29.5.2013 2013 IEHC 226

HARVEY v MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE 1990 2 IR 232

MACMATHUNA v IRELAND & AG 1995 1 IR 484 1995 1 ILRM 69

SOCIAL WELFARE CONSOLIDATION ACT 2005 S192

SOCIAL WELFARE CONSOLIDATION ACT 2005 CHAP 9

SOCIAL WELFARE CONSOLIDATION ACT 2005 S201

SOCIAL WELFARE CONSOLIDATION ACT 2005 S202

CAHILL v SUTTON 1980 IR 269

RSC O.84

CITYVIEW PRESS LTD v CHOMHAIRLE OILIUNA & ORS 1980 IR 381

JOHN GRACE FRIED CHICKEN LTD & ORS v CATERING JOINT LABOUR COMMITTEE & ORS 2011 3 IR 211 2011 1 ILRM 392 2011/28/7579 2011 IEHC 277

MCGOWAN & ORS v LABOUR COURT & ORS 2013 2 ILRM 276 2013 24 ELR 293 2013/37/10980 2013 IESC 21

O'NEILL v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1998 1 IR 539 1997 2 ILRM 435

CONSTITUTION ART 28

CONSTITUTION ART 28.2

BUCKLEY & ORS (SINN FEIN) v AG 1950 IR 67

BOLAND v AN TAOISEACH 1974 IR 338 1975 108 ILTR 13

MCKENNA v AN TAOISEACH (NO 2) 1995 2 IR 10 1996 1 ILRM 81

SINNOTT v MIN FOR EDUCATION & ORS 2001 2 IR 545

LAURENTIU v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 1999 4 IR 26

LIVESTOCK (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION) ACT 1947

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946 PART 3

CONSTITUTION ART 15

MCCANN v MIN FOR EDUCATION 1997 1 ILRM 1

BODE & OLA-BODE v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2008 3 IR 663 2007/6/1033 2007 IESC 62

Ó CEAR ÚIL BUNREACHT NA HEIREANN: A STUDY OF THE IRISH TEXT 1999 403

CONSTITUTION ART 25.5

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003 S3

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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Elijah Burke v The Minister for Education and Skills
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 9 March 2021
    ...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......
  • Ryanair DAC v an Taoiseach
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 2 October 2020
    ...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......
  • Z.K. v Reception and Integration Agency
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 January 2016
    ...the agency's ‘house rules’ in relation to complaint handling are legally flawed, as found in C.A. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IEHC 532, do not arise. In any event, C.A. is predicated on there being an arguable complaint to be pursued through those complaint handling mechanis......

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