The High Court has refused bail to a Georgian national detained pending deportation, finding that there remained a realistic prospect he could be removed within the statutory period. The ruling leaves open the possibility of a fresh application if circumstances change.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as G.T., sought release from Cloverhill Prison while challenging the refusal of consent to make a subsequent international protection application. That appeal remained pending before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. His judicial review proceedings also sought to prevent removal while the appeal was determined.
The court considered the bail application only. It did not decide the substantive judicial review or whether the pending appeal should prevent deportation. The substantive hearing was scheduled for 11 March 2025. An interim order already restrained deportation until 14 March, and the Minister had arranged a commercial flight for 19 March, subject to the outcome of the proceedings and any intervening decision.
The applicant had been detained since 31 January 2025 under an existing deportation order. He had previously reported to immigration authorities when required. However, a Detective Inspector responsible for forced removals told the court he believed the applicant might abscond if released, citing his experience of deportation operations and the timing of the applicant’s application for consent, which was made after his arrest. The judge accepted that the concern was justified, while noting the applicant’s prior compliance with reporting requirements.
The judge said the earlier interim order was made at an urgent, preliminary stage, before opposition papers and the full record of the protection proceedings were available. It did not settle whether the applicant was entitled to a final order preventing removal. The court also noted that decisions remained outstanding on the applicant’s request to revoke the deportation order and his appeal concerning the subsequent application. It made no finding that either process had suspensive effect.
The judge concluded that flight and escort arrangements, together with the expedited hearing, supported a settled intention to deport within the 56-day statutory limit. Continuing detention was therefore appropriate at that time. The application for bail was refused, but could be revisited after the substantive hearing, judgment, an appeal, or another material change in circumstances.