Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Last updated

Z. v Minister for Justice 2002
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameZ. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, James Nicholson sitting as the Appeals Authority, Ireland and Attorney General
Decided2002
Citation(s)[2002] IESC 14; [2002] 2 ILRM 215
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingKeane, C.J.

Denham, J. Murphy, J. Murray, J.

McGuinness J.
Keywords
Asylum Immigration and Nationality Asylum Refugee Status

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. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The Appellant, a 53 years of age, of Russian nationality, arrived in Ireland on the 18th of October 1999 and applied for refugee status with the first named respondent. [1]

In his submission the Appellant stated that, he has "no religion" but ethnically he is considered Jewish because his mother is Jewish. He was attacked by the Chechen paramilitaries. Afterwards he was kidnapped by the Chechen and held captive for a year. He stated that he had not received any assistance from the Russian authorities during that time. Rather the Russian authorities brought criminal allegations against him for surrendering his weapons to the paramilitaries and for disobeying superior orders. [1]

The Appellants after being interviewed by the state, his case was found to be "manifestly unfounded" on the grounds of paragraphs 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) of the Hope Hanlan Procedures. [3]

The applicant therefore sought different relief based on different grounds including,

  1. The first respondent when considering the Appellant's application to be "manifestly unfounded", failed to do it in accordance with the guidelines and/or directions of the UNHCR in respect with this type of case. [1]
  2. Secondly, the first named respondent also failed to comply with his own guidelines which were laid down for the use and purpose of whether applications were manifestly unfounded within the meaning of the Hope Hanlon Procedures. [1]

Holding of the High Court

Finnegan J. in the High Court, considered all the grounds put forth by the Appellant. However, he was not satisfied with all the grounds brought forth by the Appellant aside, (set sub-paragraph(j)). With regards to sub-paragraph (j), Finnegan J. judged that, there was "no universal requirement or general entitlement to an oral hearing of an appeal". [1] Although there is little to suggest that the dictum of Brennan J. had any lasting impact on the High Court, [4] However, influenced by the findings of the US Supreme Court in Golberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 254 [5] Finnegan J. granted the Appellant leave to bring judicial review proceedings on one ground which was failure to provide an oral hearing at the appeal stage. [1]
Finnegan J. also considered the meaning of the phrase "substantial ground"in section 5 of the Act of 2000 [6] and also referred to the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999 [7] and stated that:

"Whether, on an application, for leave to apply for judicial review in accordance to section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 brought in relation to a decision to refuse an application for refugee status on the grounds that the application is manifestly unfounded,

  1. (i) It is therefore appropriate to apply the principles set out in O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] IR 39, in particular having regard to the approach of the UNHCR to manifestly unfounded applications for refugee status: and
  2. (ii) The methods or manner used was manifestly unfounded; procedures were and/or were operated by the Respondents, or any of them, and/or as applied to the Applicant’s application were in breach of the Applicant’s constitutional rights and the requirements of natural and constitutional justice.” [1]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Court in its judgment, discussed the characteristics of judicial review while making reference to the statement of Finlay C.J. in Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] IR 39 [8] that,

"The Court cannot interfere with the decision of an administrative decision-making authority merely on the grounds that,

  1. It is satisfied that based on the facts as found it would have raised different interference and conclusions or
  2. Where the court is satisfied that case against the decision made by the authority was much stronger than the case of it." [8]

According to the Appellant, the decisions and recommendations on his refugee status claim were unreasonable and irrational therefore ultra vires. In relation to this submission, the Court referred to the test of unreasonableness set out in the judgment of Henchy. J in the State(Keegan) v The Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642 [9] which stated that,

" ...in most cases, a decision is quashed for unreasonableness, not because of the extent to which it has departed from accepted moral standards but because it is indefensible for being in the teeth of plain reason and common sense. The test of unreasonableness or irrationality in a judicial review is to consider whether the impugned decision plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense. Where it does, then the decision-maker should be held to have acted ultra vires." [9]

This general approach to judicial review was also applied in the judgment of Kelly J. in the High Court in Flood v Garda Compensation Complaints Board [1997] 2 IR 321. [10] The Court concluded that the applicant's appeal against the Minister's rejection of his application for refugee status must be dismissed.

Subsequent developments

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, James Nicholson sitting as the Appeals Authority, Ireland and Attorney General [2002] IESC 14, [2002] 2 ILRM 215 was later applied in Olawale v Refugee Applications Commissioner & Minister for Justice [2002] IEHC 152 [11]

Related Research Articles

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

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.

<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 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>J. McD v P.L and B.M</i> Irish Supreme Court case

J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological donor, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<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>Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

<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>Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd.</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Delahunty v Player and Wills (Ireland) Ltd, [2006] 1 IR 304; [2006] IESC 21 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court gave a woman permission to take action for damages against two major tobacco companies in what was the first step in the battle against 'Big tobacco'.

<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>Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd</i> (No 6) Irish Supreme Court case

Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] IESC 15; [2000] 4 IR 412 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered the test for objective bias in Ireland. During this case the Supreme Court considered:

  1. whether Supreme Court has jurisdiction to set aside its own previous order;
  2. whether an appellant must show real likelihood of bias or whether reasonable apprehension of bias suffices; and
  3. whether a prior relationship of legal advisor and client would disqualify a judge.
<i>H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

H.N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others, [2012] IESC 58; [2013] 1 IR 142, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?

<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>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 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision, where the court considered if 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, James Nicholson sitting as the Appeals Authority, Ireland and Attorney General [2002] IESC 14, [2002] 2 ILRM 215".
  2. ↑ Andreas Zimmermann; Felix Machts; Jonas Dörschner, eds. (2010). The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol : a commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1497. ISBN   978-0-19-954251-2. OCLC   646393874.
  3. ↑ Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, Hélène Lambert (2010). The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  4. ↑ Ursula Fraser, Colin J. Harvey (2003). Sanctuary in Ireland, Perspectives on Asylum Law and Policy. Dublin, Ireland: The Institute of Public Administration Lansdowne Road.
  5. ↑ "Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly et al. . 397 US 254 (1970)".
  6. ↑ "Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000".
  7. ↑ "Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999".
  8. 1 2 "O'Keeffe v an Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 IR 39".
  9. 1 2 "State (Keegan & Lysaght) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642".
  10. ↑ "Flood v Garda Síochána Complaints Board 1997".
  11. ↑ "Olawale v Refugee Applications Commissioner & Minister for Justice [2002] IEHC 152".
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.