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

2I have read the comprehensive judgment about to be delivered byHardiman J. and agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusions whichhe expresses in it.This is a case where there have already been two merit-basedhearings which have been the subject of adjudications adverse to theapplicant and in respect of which no judicial review remedy was sought.The final step in the elaborate procedures for protecting the rights of thisapplicant then lay in her entitlement under S.3(3)(b) of the ImmigrationAct, 1999 to have the Minister consider representations as to why sheshould not be deported. This stage of the process can only be seen as anad misericordiam application. It is not a revisitation of every aspect of theearlier hearings and decisions. As such it seems to me that there are veryfew ways in which the decision arrived at by the Minister at this stage ofthe procedures can be challenged. One might be where the relevantmaterials were never before the Minister. Another might arise wheresignificant new or additional factual information became available whichhad not been available at the time of the merit-based hearings. Neither ofthose circumstances arose in the instant case.I do not believe the test of proportionality has a role to play indetermining whether the court should intervene to quash a decision of thekind given here – by which I mean a decision on an ad misericordiamplea made after two merit-based hearings which were not themselves