W.T. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Form
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 561 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 05 December 2014 |
[2014] IEHC 561
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5
ODULANA v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP CLARK 25.6.2009 (EX TEMPORE)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(2)(A)
MEADOWS v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 2010 2 IR 701 2011 2 ILRM 157 2010 IESC 3
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(6)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE) ACT 2000 S4
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
S (JD) & S (PTD) (AN INFANT) [NIGERIA] v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP COOKE 11.7.2012 2012/41/12289 2012 IEHC 291
O (E) & O (PA) (A MINOR) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP RYAN 22.10.2010 2011/42/12212 2010 IEHC 512
Telescoped judicial review application - Order of certiorari - Deportation order-s.3 Immigration Act 1999 - Challenge to validity of order - Whether Minister failed to give adequate reasons for his decision - Repatriation - Whether this would breach the principle of non-refoulement
Facts This case concerned a telescoped judicial review application for an order of certiorari seeking to quash a deportation order pursuant to s.3 Immigration Act 1999. The applicant argued the Minister failed to give adequate reasons for his decision that repatriating him would not breach the principle of non-refoulement. The applicant was a national of Liberia. He was said to have left the country owing to war conditions and the fact that his parents were killed and his sister had gone missing. He gave no specific details of their death but said “there was fighting all over”. The applicant failed to cite any specific basis for his fear of persecution beyond the general violence during the Civil War in Liberia. He said he escaped to Ghana. There he claimed to have met a man who helped him travel to Ireland. He arrived in the State on 7 th September 2003 and applied for asylum the following day. In an interview with the Refugee Applications Commissioner he failed to answer the most basic questions relating to Liberia. The Commissioner recommended refugee status be refused. He applied to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which affirmed the decision of the Commissioner. On 30 th November 2004 the Minister issued a proposal to deport the applicant. Yet the letter communicating this to the applicant was marked “unclaimed”. Some years later, following receipt of the applicant”s letter and supplemental representations, a report was conducted recommending the applicant be deported. The Minister reconsidered the situation that would face the applicant if he were returned to Liberia. He affirmed his opinion that repatriating the applicant would not breach s.5 Refugee Act 1996.
Held As the applicant did not await the outcome of the consideration of the revocation application before instituting the judicial review proceedings, the judge held he was not estopped from challenging the making of the deportation order. The applicant said he feared persecution owing to the war conditions in his country of origin. The Minister referred to the country of origin information which showed the war was over. In the circumstances, the judge concluded the applicant would not be subject to refoulement if repatriated to Liberia. He said the Minister”s decision was a rational conclusion based on the evidence before him.
The judge was satisfied the reasoning as to why the Minister came to the conclusion that refoulement was not an issue, was clear from a perusal of the entirety of the decision and of the country of origin information referred to. It was clear that the Minister felt that refoulement was not an issue because the Civil War had ended almost seven years prior to that time. The judge deemed it a logical conclusion based on the material before him.
-Relief refused
1. This is a telescoped judicial review application for an order of certiorari quashing the deportation order dated 3 rd February, 2010, issued by the Minister against the applicant pursuant to s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. The basis of this challenge to the validity of the deportation order is that, in the applicant's submission, the Minister failed to give adequate reasons for his decision that repatriating the applicant would not breach the principle of non-refoulement.
2. The applicant was born on 25 th May, 1969, and claims to be a national of Liberia. He states that he was born and resided in River Cess, Liberia, before moving to Monrovia in 1980. He lived there until April or May of 2003, when he left for Ghana. He claimed that he left Liberia because of the war and that his parents, who were still living in River Cess were killed. He had no details as to the circumstances in which his family died, merely stating that there was " fighting all over", that his parents were killed and that his sister went missing. He did not know who had killed his parents.
3. As regards fear of persecution, the applicant was unable to cite any specific basis for his fear beyond the general violence that was going on during the Civil War in Liberia, when he claims to have left the country in July 2003. The applicant claimed that at a road block, rebel combatants wanted to stop him and those travelling with him, and tried to force guns into their hands and to make them fight against the Charles Taylor regime. He states that he dropped the weapon and ran off into the bush. He states that he was shot at while he was running away. The applicant claims to have lived in the bush for around a month before escaping via sea from Freeport to Ghana. There he claims to have met a man who helped him to travel to Ireland. The applicant arrived in the State on 7 th September, 2003 and applied for asylum on the following day.
4. The applicant was interviewed by the Refugee Applications Commissioner ("the RAC") on 12 th February, 2004. The applicant had difficulty answering questions in relation to comparatively basic matters relating to Liberia, including the names of tribes, the languages other than English spoken in Liberia and the geography of Monrovia. On 19 th March, 2004, the RAC recommended that the applicant's application for refugee status be refused.
5. The applicant appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal ("the RAT") which affirmed the RAC decision on 23 rd June, 2004. The Minister, on 30 th November, 2004, issued a proposal to deport the applicant. However, the letter communicating this fact to the applicant was returned marked "unclaimed".
6. By letter dated 20 th December, 2004, the Refugee Legal Services advised that they were no longer instructed in the matter.
7. Nothing further was heard from the applicant after this time. However, on 19 th December, 2008, a request was received from the United Kingdom to take back the applicant under the Dublin II Regulations. The applicant was known to the British authorities as "Daf Mukoro". The applicant stated to the UK authorities that he was a Nigerian national born on 19 th July, 1969. His fingerprints matched those of the applicant. It appears that when arrested by British police, he stated that he had been living in the UK for fourteen years, but when told that his fingerprints matched ones taken in Ireland in 2003, he admitted having been in Ireland at the time. He was transferred back to Ireland on 23 rd March, 2009.
8. The applicant sent a letter to the Minister on 10 th June, 2009, making representations as to why he felt he should not be repatriated to Liberia. The Refugee Legal Service ("the RLS") also prepared a letter dated 3 rd September, 2009, making representations on behalf of the applicant; however, as a result of an administrative oversight, this letter was not sent to the respondent until after a deportation order had issued and was served on the applicant.
9. Following receipt of the applicant's handwritten letter, as well as supplemental representations, a report was prepared on 18 th January, 2010, recommending that the applicant be deported. The present application for judicial review is directed at the contents of that report. The applicant claims that the Minister failed to give reasons as to why he considered that repatriating the applicant would not amount to a breach of the principle of non-refoulement.
10. The deportation order was signed on 3 rd February, 2010 and was served on the applicant and on the RLS on 10 th February, 2010. The applicant through the RLS sought to have the deportation order revoked by letter dated 17 th February, 2010. This letter contains s. 3 representations which, through an administrative oversight on the part of the RLS had not been submitted to the Minister. In his representations, the applicant claimed to be a Liberian national and that he feared serious harm if returned to Liberia. No specific reason or explanation was given as to why he had such fears. Country of origin information was reproduced at some length; it identified problems with the police and the courts in Liberia and the weakness of State institutions.
11. The applicant's representations were considered by the Minister in a report dated 5 th March, 2010. The report recommended that the deportation order be affirmed on the grounds that the applicant's representations did not affect the information considered prior to making the deportation order. The applicant was thus informed on 24 th March, 2010 that the deportation order was affirmed.
12. Meanwhile, on 24 th February, 2010, the applicant had launched the present proceedings through his new firm of solicitors, Byrnes Kelly Corrigan. This challenged the validity of the deportation order by way of judicial review. This was within the fourteen day time limit.
To continue reading
Request your trial