The High Court said it proposed to dismiss a judicial review challenging an amended deportation order, finding that the proceedings were brought outside the applicable time limit and that the applicant had not established grounds to extend it.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2015, Mr Justice Eagar considered the respondent’s preliminary objection that the proceedings were late. The court found they had not been brought within the 14-day period it identified under section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. It also said no attempt had been made to establish a good and sufficient reason for extending time, or to show that the circumstances causing the delay were outside the applicant’s control or could not reasonably have been anticipated.
Although the notice of motion included a request to extend time, the judge said that request was not included among the specific reliefs in the statement grounding the judicial review. He also found that the solicitor’s affidavit did not explain the failure to apply within the prescribed period or verify facts supporting such an explanation.
The applicant had sought to quash an amended deportation order dated 12 June 2014, an extension of time, and other relief. An interim injunction temporarily restrained deportation, but on 11 March 2015 the court refused to continue that protection and adjourned the leave application and substantive judicial review for a combined hearing. The present judgment followed that hearing, held on 24 June.
The respondent also objected to a later affidavit from Margaret Stephen, who said she had been in a relationship with the applicant for more than two years. The judge said the Minister was not required to investigate a person’s social activities and that the applicant had the onus of providing relevant information. The applicant’s counsel accepted that neither of the two solicitors acting for him knew about the relationship. The court record also notes that an earlier judge had observed that the relationship had not been raised in the applicant’s previous contacts with the State.
The judgment recounts an earlier decision by Mr Justice MacEochaidh, who had found that the Minister fairly considered the refoulement issue in proposing the amendment and that the applicant had been given an opportunity to respond. That earlier assessment addressed the decision-making process; Mr Justice Eagar’s stated basis for proposing dismissal was the failure to meet the time limit or justify an extension. The judgment says the court “proposes to dismiss” the proceedings; it does not record a final dismissal order.