V D (Zimbabwe) v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell,Charleton,O'Malley J.J.
• Judgment Date: 15 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IESCDET 41
• Docket Number: 2016 no 480JR
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 15 February 2019

BETWEEN

V D (Zimbabwe)

Applicant

AND

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

[2019] IESCDET 41

2016 no 480JR

1 An Chúirt Uachtarach

The Supreme Court

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the High Court.

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 30 January 2018, leave to appeal refused by High Court on 26 February 2018

DATE OF ORDER: 30 January 2018

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 30 January 2018

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 26 March 2018

REASONS GIVEN:

1 This determination concerns a decision of the High Court given by Humphries J on 30 January 2018, with leave to appeal refused on 26 February 2018.

2 D comes from Zimbabwe. He came to Ireland in November 2013 and applied for refugee status. His application was refused by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner and at first instance. He then initiated a judicial review of the final decision.

3 This case is about his state of health, which is not good. His claim is that if returned to Zimbabwe on a deportation order, made on 8 May 2016, he would have no family support and would have a reduced life expectancy. The Minister on analysing the humanitarian factors stated there would be ‘nothing to suggest that [Mr D] should not be returned to Zimbabwe.’ But the argument does not only centre on health. He has family members in Ireland. His chance of better care is part of the argument as is the better health system.

4 The principle appeal point is in relation to family rights and health. The argument is that he is a person said to be in poor health and who has family supports in Ireland. Mr D accepts that only ‘in exceptional circumstances’ can ‘a non-settled migrant’ engage Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Just because the health care is better here than in the country of origin is rarely determinative. He fears homelessness in Zimbabwe as well. The country of origin information is of health system that is a great challenge and under high levels of stress, particularly dealing with neurological conditions. He argues that a much better or more discernible level of reasoning is required when refusing leave to remain than is exhibited in the determination of the Minister. Such reasons as are given are said to amount to only counterweight analysis without detail. It is also claimed...