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

As regards the actual decision of the Minister as quoted in full earlier in this judgmentI consider that it falls into two parts reflecting the two qualifications to which I havereferred on his power to make a deportation order. One is the s. 5 prohibition asrefoulement the other the ad misercordiam considerations with regard to matters setout in s. 3(6).The first essential part of the Minister’s decision is the statement “in reaching thisdecision the Minister satisfied himself that the provisions of s. 5 (Prohibition ofRefoulement) of the Refugee Act 1996 are complied with in your case.”I interpret the Minister’s ensuing paragraph in which he states, inter alia, that he issatisfied that “the interests of public policy and the common good in maintaining theintegrity of the asylum and immigration systems outweighs such features of your caseas may tend to support your being granted leave to remain in the State” as referringexclusively to his discretionary power when considering the so called humanitariangrounds advanced on behalf of the applicant.Section 5An administrative decision affecting the rights and obligations of persons should atleast disclose the essential rationale on foot of which the decision is taken. Thatrationale should be patent from the terms of the decision or capable of being inferredfrom its terms and its context.Unless that is so then the constitutional right of access to the Courts to have thelegality of an administrative decision judicially reviewed could be rendered eitherpointless or so circumscribed as to be unacceptably ineffective.In my view the decision of the Minister in the terms couched is so vague and indeedopaque that its underlying rationale cannot be properly or reasonably deduced.The recommendation with which the memorandum submitted to the Minister with thefile is not helpful and adds to the opaqueness of the decision. That states that“Refoulement was not found to be an issue in this case.”This decision is open to multiple interpretations which would include one thatrefoulement was not an issue and therefore it did not require any discretionary- 28 -