Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Last updated

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Contents

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameToma Adam and Ors. (Appellant) v The Minister for Justice Ireland and The Attorney General (Respondent)
Decided5 April 2001
Citation(s)[2001] 3 IR 53;[2001] 2 ILRM 452; [2001] IESC 38
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Case opinions
To challenge the decision of a public authority in judicial review proceedings, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.
Court membership
Judges sittingHardiman J, McGuinness J, Murray J
Case opinions
Decision byMcGuinness J, Hardiman J
Keywords
Constitution of Ireland | Constitution | Personal Rights | Appeal | Judicial Review | Asylum

Background

There are two appeals at hand here, the Toma Adam case and the Florin Iordache case. Toma Adam case will be referred to as "the Toma Adam proceedings" and the Florin Iordache case will be referred to as "the Iordache proceedings". The appeals are heard together because of the High Court judgment in 2001.

In the Toma Adam appeal, the Applicants claimed that they came to Ireland to seek asylum as they were abused in Romania, they were oppressed of their human rights, and as a result of both of these facts, they were afraid of the same occurrences if they returned to Romania. There was no real evidence presented of either the abuse or the breach of their human rights. The High Court granted them leave to seek judicial review. The applicants were allowed to seek two reliefs: An Order of Certiorari and An Order of Mandamus. Applicants also wanted the Respondents to seek a case against Romania under the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, however, the High Court did not allow this. The Respondents later opposed the applicants and sought two orders: to discharge the High Court's decision to allow a judicial review, and to get rid of the Applicants legal action overall as they make no proper case against the Respondent and it has no serious purpose.

O'Donovan J. in the High Court, held that the Court has power to analyse the decision that granted leave to seek judicial review. The Judge also held that it is wrong that all of the Applicants were put together in one case. It was then held that the European Convention on Human Rights does not involve Irish domestic law and the Minister for Justice does not need to apply such law in his actions. Lastly, it was held that there is no proof that the Minister did not take into consideration the actions in Romania or that there was any breach of natural justice.

In the Iordache proceedings, Florin Iordache was seeking judicial review on the basis that when he lived in Romania he suffered a lot of abuse and injustice due to his sexual orientation. Laffoy J. in the High Court, allowed the Applicant to seek: An Order of Certiorari, An Order of Mandamus for the Respondents to take into consideration the Applicants wish to stay in Ireland due to asylum, An Order of Mandamus making the Respondents initiate a claim against Romania, and lastly an order to seek damages.

In regards to the Iordache proceedings, the High Court held: that the Court has power to analyse the decision that granted leave to seek judicial review just like in the Adam proceedings. It was held that the European Convention on Human Rights does not involve Irish domestic law and the Minister for Justice does not need to apply such law in his actions. Also it was held that there was no proof that the deportation was in breach of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. [5] It was lastly held that making the State to bring a case against Romania was bound to fail as it would go against Article 29.4.1 of the Constitution.

The High Court then held that the Applicants legal action should be dismissed overall as they make no proper case against the Respondent and it has no serious purpose. The Judge held that if an appeal of his decision is made to the Supreme Court, then both the Toma Adam's proceedings and the Iordache case should be heard together.

Opinion of the Supreme Court

The judgments were brought by McGuinness J., and Hardiman J.

The Issues

The first issue at hand is whether a High Court can clear the judgment of another judge in the High Court, which granted leave for judicial review to the Applicant.

The second issue is whether in the Toma Adam and Iordache cases, the Applicants made a strong case for judicial review proceedings.

Judgment of Mrs Justice McGuinness

McGuinness J. firstly agrees with the lawyers who were present in the High Court that there is no precise Irish authority on the matter regarding whether a High Court has the authority to dismiss an order for leave which has previously been given. However, in the case of Adams v DPP [6] , the judge dismissed an order for leave which was granted before. [7]

Judge McGuinness referred to the test set out in G v DPP, [8] the first part of the test was whether the Applicants had a "sufficient interest in the matter". [9] The judge explained that at this stage it is unclear with each Applicant as to what is his/her precise interest in the case. The judge agreed with O'Donovan J (High Court judge), that it is not right to have such a big group of Applicants put together. Furthermore, Judge McGuinness said that the biggest problem here for the Applicants are parts B) and C) of the test in G v DPP, [10] she stated that if the Applicants affidavit had a specific and strong ground as to why such relief was being sought, then the Applicants would get such relief. [11]

McGuinness J. then went on to talk about the affidavits of Mr Pendred (Solicitor). The affidavits regarded the matter of different ways in which the applicants could suffer persecution in Romania. McGuinness J. felt that in this case the affidavits were stated in "very general terms". [12] She reminded everyone that a judicial review is not another appeal, it is about the procedures that were used to come to a decision. The judge explained that an Applicant, when seeking leave for a judicial review must produce an affidavit that specifically establishes how he/she believes the decision making procedure was wrong. [13]

Judge McGuinness contrasted this case with R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Turgut [2001] 1 All ER 719, where "1,500 specific pages of specific evidence were submitted to the Court." [14] In this case, on the other hand, the judge could not find whether the facts supported a proper ground for the relief being fought, "because neither in the Adam proceedings nor the Iordache proceedings did the pleadings set out any specific evidence that the Minister had failed to have regard to the situation in Romania when considering the position of the Applicants." [15]

The judge found that the Applicants did not provide much evidence for their claims and did not put forward a strong case. For these reasons, Judge McGuinness dismissed both appeals and affirmed the orders of the High Court.

Judgment of Hardiman J.

Judge Hardiman, when deciding on the conclusion of the case, looked at whether the Applicants provided a strong, reasonable case, or whether these cases are "frivolous or vexatious or doomed to fail". [16]

Hardiman J., began his judgment by saying that the Applicants did not have strong evidence, they instead are simply claiming that Romania is a place where deportation should not be allowed. These allegations were made by "Counsels advice", [17] there was no real proof as to why deportation should be disallowed.

As for the Adam proceedings, the judge stated that there was nothing presented, to clearly show the individual situations of the applicants. Hardiman J., then explained that although Mr. Iordache had more specific reasons for his application, it was still quite vague. "No applicant has made out a credible cause that he or she has an individual fear of persecution." [18]

The judge then used the case of Finnucare v McMahon [1990] ILRM 505, to show contract with the case at hand. In the Finnucare case, the Plaintiff showed with strong evidence that he could not be sent back to Northern Ireland. In contrast, the Applicants in this case, apart from Mr. Iordache, did not attempt to show evidence, as Hardiman J., states in his judgment. [19]

Mr. Iordache was given permission to seek a case against Romania in the High Court, however, Hardiman J., stated, "I consider that no Court has jurisdiction to direct any such order to the executive". [20] He also referred to Article 29.4.1 of the Irish Constitution to give source to his statement. He explained that it would be against the Constitution if the Court began proceedings against Romania. If this were to happen, as the judge explained, then the court would be performing a function which is meant for the Government, it would disregard the separation of powers. [21]

Hardiman J. concluded that this case had no proper facts, apart from Mr. Iordache's case. He found these proceedings to be "frivolous, vexatious and doomed to fail: indeed they are scarcely recognisable as legal proceedings at all." [22]

Like in Judge McGuinness' conclusion, Hardiman J. also referred to the case R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Turgut [2001] 1 All ER 719, to contrast with the case at hand.

Lastly, Hardiman J. added that he also agreed with O'Donovan J. (High Court), that all of these Applicants should not have had their cases put into one proceeding without having their situations distinguished individually.

Hardiman J. dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the High Court.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adrian Hardiman</span>

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

<i>Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2002] 2 IR 305; [2002] IESC 27; [2002] 2 ILRM 241, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that fair procedure imposes a duty on the prosecution to seek out and preserve all evidence that has a bearing or a potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.

<i>De Roiste v Minister for Defence</i> Irish Supreme Court case

De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.

<i>Braddish v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Braddish v DPP[2001] 3 IR 127 was an Irish Supreme Court decision that established principles in relation to gathering of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that "the Gardaí are under a duty to seek out and preserve all evidence bearing on the guilt and innocence of an accused." Daniel Braddish, the applicant, sought a prohibitory injunction against his approaching prosecution for robbery. Video evidence of the alleged crime had been in the possession of the Gardaí but was no longer available. The effort to have the prosecution overturned was refused in the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the Applicant was entitled to the relief sought and accordingly made an order to quash the prosecution.

<i>P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 107, [2002] 1 ILRM 16 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that refusal of an application for asylum may constitute a sufficient basis for the government to order the applicant's deportation.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry.

<i>D.C. v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

D.C. v DPP[2005] 4 IR 281, [2006] ILRM 348; [2005] IESC 77 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that the standard to be met for prohibiting a trial is "where there is a real or serious risk of an unfair trial".

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>CC v Minister for Justice</i> Irish Supreme Court case

CC v Minister for Justice [2016] 2 IR 680; [2016] IESC 48 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed an appeal by the State to issue a deportation order against a Malawian family who were seeking asylum in Ireland. In this case, the Court had to reexamine a previously established test with respect to whether an order for deportation could be granted where an appeal was pending within the courts system. Ultimately, the Court decided that there was no need for refinements as the general principle identified in that test can be applied across a wide number of cases.

<i>K. (C.) v. K.</i> (J.) Irish Supreme Court case

K. (C.) v. K. (J.)[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.

<i>Lobe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Lobe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2003] IESC 3 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the applicant minors enjoy, in general terms, the right not to be expelled form the state—a right subject to limited qualification. Furthermore, the court found that applicant minors enjoy a constitutional right to be in the care and company of other family members, including their siblings in the state. The consequences of this ruling were significant in that it prohibits the state from deporting the parents and other family members of minors who are applying for asylum until the process is resolved. The case established the "primacy" of the family unit. However, the ruling also resulted in the finding that an Irish citizen who is a minor could, nevertheless, be deported if their non-national parents were deported.

<i>T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 29; [2014] 4 IR 277 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered whether Section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 was similar to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument.

References

  1. ↑ "Adam v Minister for Justice". Irish Reports. 3: 53–84. 2001 – via JustisOne.
  2. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice". Irish Law Reports Monthly. 2: 452. 2001 – via JustisOne.
  3. ↑ "Consultation Paper on Judicial Review Procedure". Law Reform Commission of Ireland. 2003.
  4. ↑ Hogan, Gerard; Gwynn Morgan, David (2010). Administrative Law. Round Hall. pp. 843–44. ISBN   9781858005720.
  5. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  6. ↑ Adams v DPP (High Court unreported 12th April 2000)
  7. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  8. ↑ G v DPP [1994] 1 IR 374
  9. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  10. ↑ [1994] 1 IR 347
  11. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  12. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  13. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  14. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  15. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  16. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  17. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  18. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  19. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  20. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  21. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
  22. ↑ "Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 9 May 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.