High Court of Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> O v The International Protection Appeal Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2019] IEHC 869 (19 December 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019IEHC869.html
Cite as: [2019] IEHC 869

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Page 1 ⇓

THE HIGH COURT

[2019] IEHC 869

[2019 No. 440 JR]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 5 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT

2000 (AS AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT

2015

BETWEEN

O

APPLICANT

– AND –

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

AND EQUALITY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND IRELAND

RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th December, 2019.

1. Mr O has been refused a refugee declaration and a subsidiary protection declaration. His

sole ground of complaint at this time is that in its appeal decision of 13.11.2016 (the

“Impugned Decision”), the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (“IPAT”), in treating

with the issue of internal settlement, “failed to give any indication as to whether it relied

on the differing terminology of ‘settle’ contained in the International Protection Act 2015,

s.32(1)(b) or ‘stay’ contained in…Art.8(1) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC or otherwise

state what difference or consequences, if any, arises from the differing terminology”.

2. The task of the IPAT is to comply with the law, not to interpret it. In any event, the court

respectfully considers that any notion that the use of the verb ‘to settle’ in s.32(1)(b) of

the International Protection Act 2015 renders that provision incompatible with the Council

Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third

country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need

international protection and the content of the protection granted (“The Qualification

Directive”) [2004] OJ L304/12 (which uses the verb ‘to stay’ in Art.8(1) (“Internal

protection”)) is mistaken: Art.3 of that Directive provides that “Member States may

introduce or retain more favourable standards for determining who qualifies as a refugee

or as a person eligible for subsidiary protection” and this Ireland has done; to the extent

that there is potential for divergence of interpretation, the duty of consistent

interpretation acts as a ‘cure all’, requiring that the two terms be interpreted consistently

with each other.

3. There is nothing in the Impugned Decision which suggests that s.32 has been

misinterpreted or misapplied: para. 5.14 of the Impugned Decision expressly refers, in

the context of internal settlement, to Mr O’s own observations concerning same (and that

his family have safely settled there, albeit that it is possible that a wider family might be

safe in a place where an individual family member might not); para. 5.15 examines the

prospect of internal settlement by reference to available Country of Origin Information.

There is no flaw of any nature presenting in this regard.

4. For the reasons set out above, the reliefs sought by Mr O are respectfully refused.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010