Z.Z. and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Refugee Applications Commissioner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian McGovern
• Judgment Date: 26 June 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] IEHC 236
• Court: High Court
• Date: 26 June 2007

[2007] IEHC 236

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 334 J.R./2006]

Z (Z) & Ors v Minister for Justice & Refugee Applications Commissioner

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Order 84. Rule, 20

BETWEEN

Z.Z., G.Z., S.Z. (A MINOR SUING NEXT FRIEND AND FATHER Z.Z.) AND N.Z. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND Z.Z.)

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AND THE REFUGEE APPLICATIONS COMMISSIONER

RESPONDENT

Abstract:

Immigration -Asylum - Judicial review - Deportation - Whether the respondents ought to have given separate consideration to the minor applicants’ claims for refugee status.

The applicants applied for an order of certiorari by way of judicial review, quashing the recommendations of the second named respondent that the applicants be refused asylum. They also sought an order of prohibition and an injunction restraining their deportation. The applicants arrived in this State with their parents and essentially their claim relates to a failure of the respondent to consider their applications for asylum separately from their parents’ application.

Held by McGovern J. in refusing the application: 1. That the applicants’ mother signed a document confirming that she wished to include her children in her asylum application. Furthermore, the concerns of the applicants’ parents in relation to their children were raised before the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Consequently, there was no reason why the applicants ought to have been treated separately from their parents. Furthermore, the first named respondent was not obliged when making the deportation order to consider the applicants separately.

Reporter: L.O’S.

1 Mr. Justice Brian McGovern delivered the 26th day of June, 2007.

2 1. This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review by way of an order of certiorariquashing deportation orders made in respect of the applicants on the 27 ^th January, 2006 and an order of certiorari quashing the recommendations of the second named respondent that the applicants be refused asylum. The applicants also seek further ancillary relief including an order of mandamus compelling the respondents to consider the applicants' applications for asylum and orders of prohibition and injunction restraining the deportation of the applicants.

3 2. The applicants arrived in the State with their parents on the 12 ^th September, 2002. They were aged ten and five years respectively at the time of their arrival in the State.

4 3. The parents of the applicants claim that as ethnic Serbs they were being persecuted in Croatia which is their home land. Their applications were unsuccessful before both the Refugee Appeals Commissioner ("the RAC") and before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal ("the RAT"). Following the RAT's decision the Minister wrote to the father of the applicants and separately to the mother and the applicants stating that he had decided to refuse them a declaration of refugee status and that he intended making deportation orders in respect of them. The Minister ultimately made a deportation order and they received notice of the making of the order on the 23 ^rd February, 2006. The applicants claim that they did not receive the deportation order prior to the 3 ^rd March, 2006. The time for making an application to challenge the deportation order expired on the 8 ^th March, 2006 and the proceedings were not issued until the 16 ^th March, 2006.

4. Delay.

5 It seems to me that the delay in this case was quite short and in the circumstances that are...