The Court of Appeal dismissed three appeals seeking release from immigration detention, holding that the documents used to justify detention were valid even though they were headed “Notification of arrest and detention” rather than “Warrant”.
The appeals were heard together and concerned people arrested under section 5 of the Immigration Act 1999, each subject to a deportation order. They were detained at Cloverhill Prison or Store Street Garda station. The High Court had refused to order their release on 7 November 2016. The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 15 November 2016.
The appellants argued that the original documents relied on by the detainers were not, and did not purport to be, warrants of detention. The respondents maintained that the detention orders were valid and also sought permission to amend the certified grounds of detention, relying on new documents headed “Warrant of arrest and detention”.
The Court of Appeal held that section 5 did not require a warrant authorising detention. It read regulation 7(b) of the 2016 amendment regulations as requiring detention under the authority of the arresting immigration officer or Garda member, rather than requiring a document in a prescribed form. The original documents identified the statutory basis for the arrest and detention and directed that the individuals be detained in a prescribed place pending arrangements for removal. The court said their heading and wording could have been better, but they left no doubt about their effect and validly justified detention.
The court therefore allowed the respondents’ cross-appeal on the validity of the original documents. It said that, strictly, it was unnecessary to decide whether the respondents could amend their certificates or whether errors in the new documents were fundamental. In case its view on the original documents was wrong, it agreed with the High Court that amendment was within the court’s jurisdiction and appropriate, and that the identified difficulties would not prevent it.
The court concluded that all three applications for release under Article 40 failed and allowed the Governor’s cross-appeal. The judgment records no separate order beyond that conclusion.