The High Court granted Amin Wadria leave to seek judicial review of a transfer order requiring him to be returned to the United Kingdom and a later decision to proceed with that transfer. The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 13 January 2010, did not decide whether either measure was lawful or whether the transfer order remained enforceable.
Mr Wadria, a Nigerian national, claimed asylum in Ireland on 31 August 2005 after entering the State without permission. He had previously applied for asylum in the UK in 2003 and been refused. UK authorities accepted Ireland’s request to take him back on 21 September 2005. A transfer order was made on 19 October that year, and an appeal against the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s determination was rejected by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal on 18 November.
His representatives later submitted medical reports saying he had suffered treatment consistent with torture in Algeria and had serious psychological difficulties requiring treatment and counselling. In judicial review proceedings begun in November 2005, the High Court granted leave by consent in January 2006 and restrained the transfer while the case continued. Those proceedings settled in July 2009. Under the settlement, the Minister agreed to consider fresh representations before implementing the transfer, with a further restraint pending notification of the determination.
The Minister’s transfer unit considered updated medical material and, in a letter dated 26 August 2009, confirmed the transfer would proceed. A file note acknowledged that the report said a transfer at that stage might severely affect Mr Wadria’s psychological and emotional recovery. His solicitors then argued that the 2005 order had lapsed because the transfer had not occurred within the six-month period in Article 20 of the Dublin II Regulation. The unit rejected that argument on 1 September 2009. An interim injunction preventing the transfer was granted on 7 September.
Justice Cooke found there were arguable issues requiring examination at a substantive hearing. These included whether the consent injunction in the earlier case suspended the transfer for the purposes of the Regulation’s six-month deadline, and what followed if that deadline expired. He also allowed a challenge concerning whether the July 2009 settlement created an obligation to consider the new representations, and whether the Minister had met any such obligation.
The court granted leave on specified grounds, reformulated them for the judicial review, and noted that the Minister could raise objections, including delay and Mr Wadria’s acquiescence in the continuing injunction. The judgment made no final ruling on the transfer order’s validity, the Minister’s obligations, or the underlying asylum claim.