The High Court has reopened a judicial review brought by Zhigang Shao and quashed a deportation order, reversing its earlier decision to dismiss his challenge. The court said newly disclosed information showed that statutory service requirements had not been met.
In an earlier judgment, the court dismissed Shao’s application to quash the order. Before a formal order was perfected, further affidavits and submissions brought new information to light. The court said it could reopen its decision before perfection, and that the case also met grounds concerning the court having been misled and exceptional circumstances.
The dispute concerned a notice served under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. Shao had given a new address to a member of the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB), but the officer was unable to enter it into the GNIB registration system. The court found there was no evidence the address had been communicated to the local registration officer. It also held that giving an address orally to a Garda member, who wrote it in a notebook, did not amount to furnishing an address for service.
The judge identified three instances of information being withheld or not disclosed in the earlier proceedings. An attachment setting out Shao’s registration details had not been separately identified in the respondent’s response to a Freedom of Information request, and the details were not set out in the respondent’s court materials. Those details showed that the registered address differed from the address where the notice was served. The court also had not been told that the officer could not update the system when Shao supplied his new address.
The judge accepted that no one intended to mislead the court and said the officers and officials involved were blameless, as they had acted on counsel’s advice. The judge also accepted the State’s counsel had acted in good faith. However, the court said the non-disclosure had left it misled on a material issue and required the earlier conclusion to be revisited.
The respondent had not sought dismissal on discretionary grounds, and the judge said it was therefore unnecessary to decide that issue. The order made was to quash the deportation order; the judgment did not determine any further immigration outcome.