High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Ireland Decisions >>
Singh v Minister for Justice & Equality [2019] IEHC 707 (08 October 2019)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019_IEHC_707.html
Cite as:
[2019] IEHC 707
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Page 1 ⇓
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
[2019] IEHC 707
[2017 No. 719 J.R.]
BETWEEN
AMARDEEP SINGH, UNA KUMAR, ROWAN KUMAR (A MINOR SUING THROUGH HIS
MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND UNA KUMAR) & MAYA KUMAR (A MINOR SUING THROUGH
HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND UNA KUMAR)
APPLICANTS
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENT
[2017 No. 18 J.R.]
BETWEEN
YUNLONG LI
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
(No. 2)
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 8th day of October,
2019
1. In Singh v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2019] IEHC 537 (Unreported, High
Court, 1st July, 2019) I dismissed the applicants’ judicial review proceedings on a number
of converging grounds:
(i) a challenge to a mere proposal is generally inappropriate;
(ii) an applicant cannot challenge a decision on the basis of a point not actually made;
which was what was attempted here;
(iii) insofar as the applications related to the Immigration Act 2004, they were
misconceived;
(iv) insofar as the applications relate to a process outside the 2004 Act, the applicants
were not as yet disadvantaged;
(v) I would have refused the application in Li on discretionary grounds had it not failed
on the merits; and
(vi) as regards discrimination or arbitrary application of the 2004 Act, inadequate
evidence of such discrimination or arbitrary operation had been presented, but even
if it had been that would not have given rise to an entitlement to the relief sought
in the present proceedings.
2. The applicants now seek leave to appeal, and I have received helpful submissions from
Ms. Leanora Frawley B.L. (with Mr. Mel Christle S.C.) for the applicants and from Mr.
David Conlan Smyth S.C. for the respondents (with Mr. Anthony Moore B.L. in Singh and
with Ms. Kilda Mooney B.L. in Li).
Page 2 ⇓
3. While the applicants have raised various inventive questions regarding s. 4 of the 2004
Act, the key issues regarding the interpretation of that Act have already been clarified at
appellate level as set out in the substantive judgment, so there is no point in granting
leave to appeal in this case.
4. Ms. Frawley has in oral submissions limited herself to the first question relating to the
2004 Act proposed in her written submissions, but the various judgments at appellate
level discussed in the No. 1 judgment, while perhaps not addressing the question as so
worded expressly, have the logical consequence that a person who at some period in the
past had a s. 4 permission which has expired for more than a de minimis period cannot
now seek to rely on s. 4 to circumvent the deportation process. In any event I should
perhaps add that the convergence of a number of separate reasons for dismissal of the
proceedings here also militates against the conclusion that the test for leave to appeal
has been satisfied.
Order
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
Result: Application for leave to appeal is refused