The Supreme Court has rejected challenges by failed asylum applicants to the reasons given by the Minister for Justice for proposing and making deportation orders, while allowing one applicant to pursue a narrower procedural point.
Mr Justice Hardiman delivered judgment on July 30, 2001, in linked cases brought by applicants identified as P., L. and B. Each had applied for asylum, been refused and unsuccessfully appealed those decisions. None had challenged the asylum decisions themselves.
The applicants instead challenged later steps under the Immigration Act 1999. They argued, among other things, that refusal of asylum was not enough on its own to justify a proposal to deport and that the Minister had failed to give adequate reasons for the final decisions.
Hardiman J rejected those arguments. He held that a failed asylum seeker falls within a statutory category of people whom the Minister may deport. The requirement to give "reasons" did not mean that more than one reason had to be supplied.
The Minister's decision letters stated that the applicants had been refused refugee status and that, after considering the factors listed in section 3(6), their individual circumstances did not outweigh public policy and the common good in maintaining the integrity of the asylum and immigration system.
The court held that those reasons were relevant, intelligible and adequate. Reference to the common good did not amount to a criticism of the applicants' character. Rather, it concerned the State's legitimate interest in controlling immigration.
The court also rejected an argument by B. that his marriage to another Romanian asylum applicant prevented his deportation while her application to remain was unresolved.
However, B. had already been granted leave to seek judicial review on a separate procedural ground. His representations began before the Immigration Act 1999 came into force and were decided afterwards. Hardiman J held it was arguable that the new statutory requirement to notify him expressly of the reason for the proposed deportation had to be followed literally.
The applicants' appeals were dismissed, as was the Minister's cross-appeal against the leave granted to B. on that single ground.