The Supreme Court allowed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal against a High Court order quashing the refusal to revoke Ivan Seredych’s deportation order. It held that the Minister’s consent for him to make a subsequent international protection application did not give him a right to re-enter Ireland or oblige the Minister to revoke the order or facilitate entry.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Marie Baker on 13 October 2020, overturned an order made by Mr Justice Humphreys in December 2019. The High Court had found that refusing to revoke the order unlawfully frustrated the statutory process after the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) set aside a recommendation to refuse consent.
Mr Seredych, a Ukrainian citizen, had lived in Ireland after arriving in 2001. He left for Ukraine in April 2018 in compliance with a deportation order. Before leaving, he had sought permission to make a subsequent protection application. IPAT set aside the recommendation against consent in February 2019, and the Minister then consented. Mr Seredych was required to attend an interview within 10 days. His request for revocation of the deportation order was refused, as was a visa application.
The Supreme Court said the consent removed one statutory hurdle but did not itself begin a protection application or make Mr Seredych an applicant under the International Protection Act 2015. The Act required an application to be made in person by someone in Ireland or at its frontier. As he was in Ukraine, he could not meet that condition or rely on the associated right to enter and remain while an application was examined.
The Court also found no requirement in the applicable legislation or international instruments to admit or readmit a person for the purpose of making a protection application. It accepted the principle that a Minister may not frustrate a statute’s purpose, but held that the Minister had complied with the duty imposed by section 22 by giving consent. The statute did not require further steps to enable Mr Seredych to enter Ireland.
The Court rejected the argument that the refusal was arbitrary and said there was no basis to require revocation or a visa. It allowed the Minister’s appeal, setting aside the High Court relief. The judgment also criticised personal remarks about counsel in the High Court judgments, describing them as offensive and saying they had no place in a judgment.