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

5in this State by applying Irish jurisprudence. In other words, there should be a commonlaw approach in the context of the Constitution and the law.Effective remedy11. Judicial review should be an effective remedy. This is so especially when accessto the courts has been curtailed by legislation. The process should be such as to give aneffective remedy to the decisions under review, including those impinging on fundamentalrights and freedoms.12. The review in this case arises under s.5(2)(b) of the Illegal Immigrants(Trafficking) Act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”, which makesprovision for an application for judicial review. The section limits access to the courts ina number of ways. (a) It provides that a person shall not question the validity of a seriesof decisions otherwise than by way of an application for judicial review under Order 84 ofthe Rules of the Superior Courts. (b) The time for such an application is limited to aperiod of fourteen days commencing on the date on which the person was notified of thedecision, unless the High Court considers there is good and sufficient reason forextending the period in which the application should be made. (c) Also, such anapplication should be made by motion on notice and the statute places a specific burdenupon the applicant, i.e. the High Court must be satisfied that there are substantial groundsfor contending that the decision is invalid or ought to be quashed. (d) Further, thatdecision is final. No appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of the High Courtexcept with the leave of the High Court, which leave will be granted only where the HighCourt certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importanceand that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the HighCourt.13. Section 5 of the Act of 2000 was considered by this Court in The IllegalImmigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999 [2000] 2 I.R. 360 and determined to be