Y.Y. v The Minister for Justice and Equality No.11

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 25 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 122
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 774 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 25 February 2019

[2019] IEHC 122

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2016 No. 774 J.R.]

BETWEEN

Y.Y.

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENT

(No. 11)

Adjournment – Secret or incommunicado detention – Further representations – Applicant seeking adjournment – Whether the proceedings should be adjourned to enable the applicant to make further representations on the issue of secret or incommunicado detention

Facts: The High Court (Humphreys J), on 11th February, 2019, gave the applicant liberty to amend the proceedings to challenge the latest decision under s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 which refused to revoke the deportation order against him on the grounds of the treatment by the respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, of the issue of secret or incommunicado detention in Algeria. Having allowed that amendment, and there having been an amended statement of opposition delivered on behalf of the respondent, dated 22nd February, 2019, the issue was how to dispose substantively of that claim. On behalf of the applicant, while formally it was suggested that the decision overall should be quashed, the focus of Mr Lynn’s argument was that proceedings should be adjourned to enable the applicant to make further representations on the issue of secret or incommunicado detention, on foot of which the Minister could either affirm or reverse the s. 3(11) decision.

Held by Humphreys J that, given the clear statement on behalf of the Minister that there were no post-2016 reports of secret or incommunicado detention in a context where an applicant has already overcome the significant hurdle of establishing substantial grounds of a risk of treatment contrary to art. 3 of the ECHR, as applied by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 demonstrating the existence of even a report of a report of such detention post-2016 should be regarded as showing an error and thus gives rise to a problem that the State should be required to address. Humphreys J held that, in all the circumstances, the best way to do so was in the manner suggested by the applicant.

Humphreys J held that the order therefore would be: (i) that finalisation of the challenge to the s. 3(11) decision of 22nd November, 2018 be adjourned pending ministerial consideration of further submissions by the applicant, to be confined to the issue of secret or incommunicado detention; (ii) that on foot of such submissions, the Minister shall reconsider that decision and either affirm it or reverse it; (iii) that directions will apply in relation to that process for the reasons stated in the previous judgments in the proceedings, as follows: (a) that the applicant be treated as having overcome the prima facie hurdle of providing evidence capable of demonstrating substantial grounds for believing there would be a real risk of treatment contrary to art. 3 of the ECHR as applied by the 2003 Act and that the Minister should approach the matter by reference to whether doubts in that regard can be dispelled by the Minister in accordance with the ECHR case law; (b) that the applicant have seven days from the oral pronouncement of this order to make any further submissions to the Minister dealing with the sole issue of secret or incommunicado detention, which may include new material on that issue; (c) that within seven days from such submissions, the respondent provide the applicant with a schedule of material, including country information, case law and documents, to which regard is intended to be had in dealing with any such representations relating to the issue of secret or incommunicado detention, but...