The High Court refused a minor’s application for leave to challenge a deportation order, finding he had not shown substantial grounds to quash it. The court held that the Minister had considered the Article 3 risk and that the medical material did not bring the case within the exceptional circumstances described in earlier case law.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as D. O. E., was born in Ireland to Nigerian parents and has sickle cell anaemia. His mother, A. K. E., brought the case as his next friend. The application concerned a deportation order made on or about 1 July 2011 and received on 7 July, according to the judgment.
The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to make an adequate inquiry into whether return to Nigeria would expose him to a risk of death, and had not considered a letter from consultant paediatric haematologist Dr Corrina McMahon dated 9 September 2009. That letter urged sympathetic consideration of the family’s residency application, saying the child would “probably die” if returned to Africa. The respondent said the later, more specific report from the doctor had superseded it, and that the Minister had considered the risk submission in any event.
Mr Justice Kevin Cross distinguished the 2009 letter from the doctor’s report of 7 May 2010. He described the earlier letter as a letter of support rather than a formal medical report specific to the child. The later report said the severity of the child’s illness could not be predicted, and described sickle cell treatment in Africa as basic and care in Ireland as better.
The judgment noted that the Minister’s decision discussed the 2010 report, addressed Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and considered medical treatment available in Nigeria. The Minister had also recorded the submission that the child might die without proper medical attention. The court found no deficiency in the Minister’s consideration of the potential Article 3 violation.
The judge added that even if the earlier letter had not been properly considered, it would not, alongside the other material, establish the exceptional circumstances required under the cited case law. The court noted that the child had not had sickle cell events in his first year and that the doctor could not predict whether his illness would be severe.
The ruling concerned only whether there were substantial grounds to grant leave to challenge the deportation order. The court was not satisfied that this threshold had been met, so the leave application failed.