The High Court has refused a Nigerian man’s application to quash a decision affirming his deportation order and to require reasonable advance notice of the precise arrangements for his removal from Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the Minister was required to consider new factual matters raised since the earlier decision not to revoke the order. The Minister was not required to enter into legal debate about the constitutional arguments advanced on the man’s behalf. The court found the medical material had been analysed and held that the decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as K.A. (Nigeria), had arrived in Ireland in January 2008 and sought asylum. After his asylum claim and appeal were refused, a deportation order was made in March 2012. He had sickle cell anaemia and later submitted medical records and a psychiatric report as part of requests to revoke the order. The psychiatric report described depression and suicidal thoughts, including two recent attempts, and assessed some risk of suicide. The judge said the report lacked detail but had been clearly analysed by the Minister’s department.
The applicant argued that the Minister had failed to address his reliance on Article 40.3 of the Constitution, including his contention that deportation could expose him to a risk of death through suicide. The judge held that the Minister’s duty on a revocation application was to consider new facts, rather than respond to legal arguments. He also referred to the applicant’s conduct in dealings with the authorities, which he considered relevant to the case.
The applicant’s second ground concerned access to the courts. He argued that a person arrested for deportation might be taken to an airport without time to obtain legal advice or seek an injunction. His counsel proposed 72 hours’ notice of removal arrangements. The Minister’s counsel said the applicant had already obtained injunctions in earlier proceedings and that no interference with court access had been shown.
The judge found no evidence that deportations were being enforced soon after an order was made, and said solicitors could apply to court to prevent removal, including where a person had been arrested. He rejected the request for a notice period and refused the applications sought. The judgment did not set aside the deportation order or prescribe a specific notice period before removal.