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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

…” He also concluded (at 182) that such and like matters (deficient health care orlife expectation) would plainly not be a ground for interfering with deportation.At the initial stages of her application for refugee status the second applicant in thatcase claimed that she was involved with a particular cult in Lagos, Nigeria and hadbeen informed by the High Priest of the cult that she should bring human heads assoon as possible for “rituals” and that the mark of death was placed on her for notcarrying out this order. It is not stated in the judgment that this was a groundadvanced during her interview before an officer of the Department as a basis forrelying on a threat to her life or freedom within the meaning of Article 5 but inparticular there is no indication that it was relied upon in any form whenrepresentations were later made on her behalf to the Minister pursuant to s. 3 of theAct.In that case, in dealing with the Minister’s decision on s. 5 of the Act of 1966 (theprohibition against refoulement) at the s. 3 stage of the process Keane C.J., havingnoted that the second applicant had submitted that fair procedure requires the Ministerto give reasons for holding that s. 5 had been satisfied stated “I am satisfied that thissubmission is also without foundation. Section 5 of the Act of 1996, does not requirethe first respondent to give any notice to a person in the position of the secondapplicant that he proposes to make a decision under that section: it simply requiresthe first respondent to satisfy himself as to the refoulement issue before making adeportation order. In this case, representations having been made to the firstrespondent as to why the second applicant should not be deported, she was informedthat:-“The Minister has satisfied himself that the provisions of s. 5 (Prohibition ofRefoulement) of the Refugee Act 1996 are complied with in your case.”I am satisfied there is no obligation on the first respondent to enter intocorrespondence with a person in the position of the second applicant setting outdetailed reasons as to why refoulement does not arise. The first respondent’sobligation was to consider the representations made on her behalf and notify her of hisdecision: that was done, and accordingly, this ground was not made out.”- 26 -
Keane C.J., did not refer to any material specifically relevant to refoulement, asdistinct from humanitarian grounds, which were relied upon by the applicant at thatstage. If there was no such material then the Minister’s decision on s.5 would havebeen one of form only and not required any rationale.However, I do not in any event understand Keane C.J’s statement in that case asabsolving the Minister from ensuring that his decision pursuant to s. 3 at that stage, ina case where an applicant has relied in his or her submissions on material expresslyrelevant to the prohibition on refoulement, is in terms which would enable therationale, at least, of the decision to be discerned expressly or by inference. Certainly,the Minister when making a decision in relation to s. 5 on non refoulement is notbound, absent special circumstances at least, to enter into correspondence with theperson concerned setting out the detailed reasons as to why refoulement does notarise. If the criteria for judicial review set out in Keegan and O’Keeffe are to beeffectively deployed, even in circumstances where the application of the principle ofproportionality does not arise, at the very least the rationale underlying the decisionmust be discernible expressly or inferentially.The second qualification on the power conferred on the Minister to make adeportation order arises from the provisions of ss. 3 and 6 of s. 3 of the Act of 1999.By virtue of these provisions the Minister is required to have regard to therepresentations made at that stage by the proposed deportee, and the matters referredto in ss. 6, before deciding whether to proceed with the making of a deportation order.The specific matters which the Minister is required to take into account in decidingwhether to make a deportation order as set out in ss. 6 of s. 3 and are generallyreferred to as the humanitarian grounds upon which the Minister may decide not tomake a deportation order notwithstanding that the person concerned has no legal rightto remain in the State. The subsection is cited in detail above but the matters to betaken into account include the personal circumstances of the persons concerned suchas their duration of residence, family and employment history and humanitarianconsiderations generally as well as the common good and considerations of nationalsecurity and public policy.- 27 -
Page 1 and 2: UNAPPROVEDTHE SUPREME COURTMurray C
Page 3 and 4: to apply the standards set out in O
Page 5 and 6: female genital mutilation of the ap
Page 7 and 8: NGOs as abhorrent. The material bef
Page 10 and 11: person shall be given a copy of the
Page 13 and 14: eached by the Tribunal was open to
Page 15 and 16: decision making authority merely on
Page 17 and 18: As is patently evident from the dic
Page 19 and 20: all that was entailed for the livel
Page 21 and 22: “I agree with the opinion express
Page 23 and 24: QB 517, re (Mahmood) v. Secretary o
Page 25: On the other hand if such material
Page 29 and 30: consideration. On the other hand it
Page 31 and 32: THE SUPREME COURTMurray C.J.Kearns
Page 33 and 34: 3challenged. It is a test more appr
Page 35 and 36: 5which would create uncertainty and
Page 37 and 38: 1. The High Court has certified a q
Page 39 and 40: 4c) A recognition that the burden o
Page 41 and 42: constitutional. It was held that th
Page 43 and 44: 8decision in light of fundamental c
Page 45 and 46: 10similarity may be seen in the req
Page 47 and 48: 12Thus a decision could be so dispr
Page 49 and 50: 14On her arrival in the State the a
Page 51 and 52: 16open to me to consider whether or
Page 53 and 54: 18All of the members of the Court a
Page 55 and 56: 20(i)The decision in this case is t
Page 57 and 58: 22protect constitutional rights. Wh
Page 59 and 60: - 2 -Overview.This is an appeal fro
Page 61 and 62: - 4 -in two separate and independen
Page 63 and 64: - 6 -In the present case, the appli
Page 65 and 66: - 8 -“Keegan v. Stardust” test
Page 67 and 68: - 10 -‘Judicial review is concern
Page 69 and 70: - 12 -Amongst the grounds of challe
Page 71 and 72: - 14 -The applicant made a written
Page 73 and 74: - 16 -the status of refugees as ame
Page 75 and 76: - 18 -The applicant’s solicitor s
Page 77 and 78:
- 20 -By a further letter dated the
Page 79 and 80:
- 22 -In similar vein the Irish Tim
Page 81 and 82:
- 24 -Nigeria.” Female genital mu
Page 83 and 84:
- 26 -In Sweden, this was proposed
Page 85 and 86:
- 28 -herself said that he had gone
Page 87 and 88:
- 30 -The application to the Minist
Page 89 and 90:
- 32 -on your behalf the Minister i
Page 91 and 92:
- 34 -vindicate the applicant’s c
Page 93 and 94:
- 36 -Minister for Justice [2002] 1
Page 95 and 96:
- 38 -In both of the earlier judgme
Page 97 and 98:
- 40 -female genital mutilation wer
Page 99 and 100:
- 42 -The concluding portion of the
Page 101 and 102:
- 44 -It must be borne in mind that
Page 103 and 104:
- 46 -dismissed from his employment
Page 105:
- 48 -permission to remain in Irela
Page 108 and 109:
- 51 -The criteria for judicial rev
Page 110 and 111:
- 53 -consider a case where basic h
Page 114 and 115:
- 57 -This point seems to me to lie
Page 116 and 117:
- 59 -deals with constitutional rig
Page 118 and 119:
- 61 -Thus, in English cases such a
Page 120 and 121:
- 63 -from Chief Constable of North
Page 122 and 123:
- 65 -Justice of Appeal, widely kno
Page 124 and 125:
- 67 -At p.12 he considered the pas
Page 126 and 127:
- 69 -which is firmly associated wi
Page 128 and 129:
- 71 -Some of these cases have been
Page 130 and 131:
- 73 -from our own Constitution, to
Page 132 and 133:
- 75 -Nature of Judicial Review.I s
Page 134 and 135:
- 77 -to deference as that word is
Page 136 and 137:
- 79 -But with great regret I am fo
Page 138 and 139:
- 81 -“What his views are regardi
Page 140 and 141:
- 83 -some evidence capable of supp
Page 142 and 143:
- 85 -believes or disbelieves the a
Page 144 and 145:
- 87 -“I would myself consider th
Page 146 and 147:
- 89 -I repeat that I cannot see in
Page 148 and 149:
- 91 -The Court moreover held (page
Page 150 and 151:
- 93 -In the case of Fajujonu v. Mi
Page 152 and 153:
- 95 -This is a recent decision of
Page 154 and 155:
- 97 -assert what is said in F.P. a
Page 156 and 157:
- 99 -scrutiny must necessarily fal
Page 158 and 159:
THE SUPREME COURTNo. 419/2003Murray
Page 160 and 161:
9. Solicitors for the appellant, in
Page 162 and 163:
• Although FGM is reputed to take
Page 164 and 165:
23. The statutory standard thus req
Page 166 and 167:
to the “necessarily implied const
Page 168 and 169:
43. Most recently, Geoghegan J, wri
Page 170 and 171:
52. Dealing, in Regina v Secretary
Page 172 and 173:
provided by the English courts. Aft
Page 174 and 175:
66. The Minister puts the matter we
Page 176 and 177:
applied, permits the person challen
Page 178 and 179:
they were not entitled to asylum, t
Page 180:
84. I would grant an order to the a
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?