Meadows v MJELR IESC 3.pdf - European Database of Asylum Law

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a person's freedomshall be regarded as being threatened if, inter alia, in the opinion of theMinister, the person is likely to be subject to a serious assault (including aserious assault of a sexual nature).It is important to note that it is not in issue in this case that the forcible subjection of awoman to FGM would constitute a serious assault within the meaning of subsection(2) and therefore must be regarded as a threat to a person’s freedom within themeaning of subsection (1)The Test for Judicial ReviewThe issue in this appeal concerns the ambit of the criteria which the Courts shouldapply when judicially reviewing the validity of administrative decisions.The primary and contemporary reference points for the approach which the Courtsshould adopt when judicially reviewing such decisions are the decisions of this Courtin The State (Keegan) v. The Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642and O’Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanala & Ors [1993] 1 I.R. 39. At this point I think it isconvenient to first set out the essential conclusions in these two cases beforecommenting further on them.The Keegan CaseIn the Keegan case the claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the StardustCompensation Tribunal to review the refusal of his claim for damages for nervousshock which he said he had sustained as a result of the tragic death of his twodaughters and injuries to a third daughter in the Stardust Club in February 1981. Thecase made on his behalf was that the Tribunal ought to have decided, on the basis ofthe medical reports, that the claimant was entitled to an award and that the decision tomake no award was arbitrary and capricious.In his judgment in this particular case Finlay C.J., noted that the prosecutor mainlyrelied on the principles enunciated in the decision of The Associated Provincial Ltd v.Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223. That was a decision of the Court ofAppeal in England and Finlay C.J., cited a passage from the judgment of Lord GreeneM.R. as succinctly stating the principle enunciated in that decision. The passage wasas follows:- 11 -