High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Ireland Decisions >>
M.N. (Malawi) v The Minister for Justice and Equality No.2 [2019] IEHC 560 (22 July 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019_IEHC_560.html
Cite as:
[2019] IEHC 560
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
M.N. (Malawi) -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality No.2
Judgment By Humphreys J.
Court High Court
Date Delivered 22 July 2019
Status Approved
Neutral Citation [2019] IEHC 560
Record Number 2018 839 JR
Date Uploaded 29 July 2019
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 22nd day of July, 2019
1. In M.N. (Malawi) v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2019] IEHC 489 (Unreported, High Court, 21st June, 2019) I refused
an application for certiorari of what purported to be a review decision under s. 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015 of 14th
August, 2018 and a consequent deportation order dated 7th September, 2018. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal and I have
received helpful submissions from Mr. Eamonn Dornan B.L. for the applicant and from Mr. Daniel Donnelly B.L. for the respondent.
2. I have considered the caselaw on leave to appeal, including Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250 (Unreported,
MacMenamin J., 13th November, 2006), Arklow Holidays v. An Bord Pleanála [2008] IEHC 2, per Clarke J. (as he then was), and I.R. v.
November, 2016) (para. 2), and Y.Y. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2) [2017] IEHC 185 [2017] 3 JIC 2405 (Unreported, High
Court, 24th March, 2017) (para. 72).
Applicant’s proposed question
3. The applicant’s proposed question of exceptional public importance is set out at para. 20(a) of written submissions as follows: “In
his duty under s. 51(3) of the International Protection Act 2015 … to notify an applicant of the reasons for making a deportation
order, must the Minister disclose the matters considered in forming his opinion under s. 50 of the Act, including country of origin
information”.
4. The first problem with that question is that the information was disclosed in the sense that it was readily ascertainable from the
file, as I held in the No. 1 judgment. The obligation on the decision-maker is to enable the material considered to be ascertainable
rather than to narratively list it. The suggestion that the latter is required is a proposition for which there is no authority.
5. A second problem is that independently of that point, the applicant made no submissions whatsoever prior to the decision. In the
absence of such submissions or indeed of any attempt to seek particulars of the information considered, the applicant cannot
reasonably expect to succeed under this heading: see for example I.S.O.F. (A Minor) and Others v. Minister for Justice, Equality and
Law Reform [2010] IEHC 457 (Unreported, High Court, Cooke J., 17th December, 2010), Mubango v. Minister for Justice and Equality
[2018] IEHC 653 [2016] 11 JIC 1411 (Unreported, High Court, 14th November, 2016), para. 18, Lingurar v. Minister for Justice and
Equality [2018] IEHC 96 [2018] 2 JIC 0808 (Unreported, High Court, 8th February, 2018) para. 9, Voivod v. Minister for Justice and
Equality [2018] IEHC 647 (Unreported, High Court, 19th November, 2018) para. 7. As eloquently put by Mr. Donnelly in his written
submissions, para. 9, “[t]his obstacle will bar the Applicant’s way in the Court of Appeal just as much as it did in this Honourable
Court. It is therefore highly unlikely that, if an appeal were to proceed, the Court of Appeal would actually determine the issue that
the Applicant has identified”.
6. The final difficulty for the applicant is that this is well-trodden ground and that there is no uncertainty in the law requiring
appellate clarification. The Supreme Court has pronounced on the question of the level of reasons required in such circumstances on a
assuming in favour of the applicant that Meadows adopts a somewhat more high-watermark approach to the need for reasons than
Baby O. in this respect, what is clear is that if an applicant fails to make any relevant submission, the decision in such circumstance is
one of form and the rationale does not need to be expressly set out. If an applicant does make particular submissions, then naturally
the reasons provided must be such as to enable the rationale for the decision to be discernible. Under those circumstances, there is
nothing in the way of uncertainty that requires further clarification. Points already clarified by appellate courts do not require
unending re-clarification.
Order
7. The application is dismissed.