The High Court dismissed a Georgian man’s judicial review challenging the Minister’s 2010 decision not to revoke a deportation order, finding the Minister was entitled to rely on updated information about Georgia’s criminal procedure system. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Barr on 28 March 2014.
The court first considered the respondents’ argument that the applicant had delayed bringing his case. Although proceedings were issued in February 2011, the respondents had sought a series of adjournments, and the delay point was raised only shortly before the hearing. The judge held it would be unfair to permit the point to be taken so late and extended the time for bringing the proceedings.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as K. T. (Georgia), said he had fled political persecution. He alleged that Georgian authorities had monitored him, arrested him after the 1999 elections on false charges, and mistreated him after he returned to Georgia in 2004. He had applied for asylum in Ireland in 2004 under another name, later withdrew that application and left Ireland. After being returned from Belgium in 2006, he sought readmission to the asylum process, but that request was refused.
The Minister made a deportation order in 2005. In 2008, the applicant submitted representations against deportation, including personal documents and country information. An executive officer reviewed the file in 2010, including updated reports on Georgia. The officer concluded that the information showed functioning police and judicial systems, and recommended affirming the deportation order while adding the name “T.K.” The Minister accepted the recommendation and amended the order on 17 November 2010.
The judgment records that the applicant was deported to Georgia on 11 October 2012. It also states that no information was before the court about how he had been treated after his return.
The judge found that updated country information, including changes under Georgia’s new criminal procedure code, supported the Minister’s assessment that the applicant would receive a fair trial if prosecuted. Applying the approach in a Supreme Court decision on challenges to refusals to revoke deportation orders, the judge concluded that the Minister was entitled to refuse revocation. The judicial review was dismissed.