High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Ireland Decisions >>
D. (O.) v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IEHC 167 (29th November, 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2001/167.html
Cite as:
[2001] IEHC 167
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
D. (O.) v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IEHC 167 (29th November, 2001)
THE
HIGH COURT
(Judicial
Review)
Record
No. 679JR/2000
BETWEEN
O
D
APPLICANT
AND
THE
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
RESPONDENT
Judgment
of Mr. Justice T.C. Smyth delivered the 29th day of November 2001
1. The
Applicant is a Nigerian national whose date of birth has been given in the
documentation as of 14th August 1965. The following chronology of events is
indicative of the course of the application made for asylum in this country.
28-6-98: Departed
Lagos
29-6-98: Arrived
in Ireland via Germany
30-6-98: Given
form of questionnaire
3-7-98:
Questionnaire
form signed
14-7-98: Apprehended
at Holyhead and returned to Ireland.
15-7-98: Attended
for interview
20-7-98: Assessment
and recommendation for refugee status signed by one Florrie Martin
1-9-98: Martin
O’Mahony’s report and recommendation
26-11-98: Martin
O’Mahony’s letter to Applicant advising of “decision”
on refugee status and advising of appeal entitlements.
14-10-99: Letter
of Wendy Murray to Applicant indicating Minister’s proposal to make a
Deportation Order.
18-11-99: Consideration
of deportation notification signed by Deirdre Ginley.
28-1-00: Deportation
Order directed to O D
10-11-00: Letter
of Notification of Deportation Order
- Make
arrangements on 12th November 2000 re deportation
- Deportation
arrangements will be put in place to effect your deportation not later than
Thursday, 7th December 2000 (Applicant arrested on 12th November 2000)
22-11-00: Proceedings
lodged in Central Office therefore no issue as to time arises.
2. All
the foregoing documentation is in the name of Olagbenro D. It appears that a
further application was made for asylum in the name of Olaniji D. on the 15th
September 1999 when an application form was given to him on his arrival in
Dublin via Paris and this form was completed on the 23rd September 1999 and
contained a number of discrepancies even on a range of historical data from the
other application forms signed.
SUBMISSIONS
1. The
Applicant
(a) The
instant case was not covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in
P.
L. and B.
3. Letter
of notification of the 10th November 2000 is defective because it refers to -
“..
including the representations received on your behalf.”
(c) Neither
the Deportation Order or the Letter of Notice taken separately or in
conjunction inform the Applicant with certainty of the date upon which he will
be deported and accordingly there has been a failure by the Respondent to
comply with the provisions of Section 3(1) and Section 3(9) of the Immigration
Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999).
2. The
Respondent
(a) The
statutory requirements have been met in the terms of the Deportation Order and
Letter of Notice
(b) The
information supplied by the application and interview is and are
representations as to the facts that were proffered by the Applicant
(c) The
decision of the Supreme Court in
P.
L. and B.
covers the case
DECISION
4. I
am satisfied and find as a fact and as a matter of law that -
5. A. The
expression
representations
in the Letter of Notice is not used as a term of art and while often or indeed
nearly always referable to representations made under Section 3 of the Act of
1999 seeking “leave to remain on humanitarian grounds” but is not
so limited. The expression is sufficiently wide to include the information
given in the questionnaire and at interview. The application form for refugee
status which faces the questionnaire expressly states:-
“Your
application for refugee status
will
be considered on the basis of the information supplied in this form, during the
subsequent interview
and
in
any other submissions you
may
make to us.”
6. I
hold that the use of the expression “
including
the representations received on your behalf”
does not invalidate the Letter of Notice because there was no other
representations other than in the questionnaire and interview notes.
7. B. Section
3(1) of the Act of 1999 enables or empowers the Minister, subject to the
provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1999 and the subsequent provisions of
Section 3 thereof to make a Deportation Order to require a non-national,
specified in the order, to leave the State
within
such period
(not on a specific day or date) as may be specified in the order and to remain
thereafter (i.e. after such period) out of the State. The amendment by
extension by S. 10 (a) (i) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000
does not displace this provision.
8. Sub-section
9(a) of Section 3 is amended by substitution by S. 10 (a) (ii) of the Illegal
Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 and provides that the notice (under
sub-section (3)(b)(ii)) may require the person concerned to do any one or more
of the things specified in the subsection notice
for
the purpose of
his or her
deportation
from the State.
9. The
decision of the Supreme Court in
P.
L. and B.
is to the effect that the documents must be taken in conjunction. The person
to be deported must be treated like a human being and arrangements invariably
require to be made - unless the concerned person leaves voluntarily - the
presentation at a particular place and at a particular time is to make
arrangements for the purposes of his or her deportation. The period
within
which
the Applicant is to leave the State is provided for in Section 3(1) in the
instant case is the period 12th November 2000 to 7th December 2000.
C. There
is no “
inadequacy,
technical or otherwise, in either the letter or the order or in both of them
taken together”
to adopt the decision of the Supreme Court
in
P.
L.
and
B. .v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Anor.
(unreported 30/7/2001). in the instant case
RESULT:
10. There
being no substantial grounds for contending that the decision challenged is
invalid and for the reasons set out in my decision the application is dismissed.
© 2001 Irish High Court