The High Court quashed a decision by the Minister for Justice not to revoke a deportation order after a solicitor raised concerns that the applicant was at risk of suicide if returned to Nigeria.
In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2004, Mr Justice Gilligan held that the Minister should not have decided the matter without seeing a psychotherapist’s report referred to in the solicitor’s letter. The ruling concerned the fairness of the process for considering a request to revoke the order; it did not overturn the earlier refusal of the applicant’s asylum claim.
The applicant, a Nigerian national who arrived in Ireland in February 2000, had claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution connected to his father’s membership of the Ogboni Fraternity. He said he feared being given to the group for human sacrifice. His asylum application was refused initially and on appeal.
A deportation order was made on 27 May 2002. In a letter dated 4 July, the applicant’s solicitor asked the Minister to revoke it on humanitarian grounds, saying a therapist believed the applicant might attempt suicide before repatriation. The solicitor said a report would be available the following day and sought a decision by the close of business on 5 July, citing a deadline for bringing legal proceedings.
The court found the report was not available to the solicitor when that letter was sent, but it was later included with the affidavit supporting the judicial review application filed on 8 July. The report, dated 3 July, described the applicant as deeply depressed and at times actively suicidal, and said the threat of deportation had undermined his sense of security.
The Minister’s position was that the 5 July fax did not amount to a decision refusing revocation. The Minister also argued that the report could not have been considered because neither the Minister nor the solicitor had it on 5 July. The applicant argued that the refusal was made without considering significant medical evidence and the risk to his life.
Justice Gilligan found there was a bona fide concern about the applicant’s life that had been brought to the Minister’s attention. He said statutory discretion to revoke a deportation order had to be exercised in accordance with constitutional justice, including a duty to consider evidence before making a decision. Although he criticised the solicitor for not supplying the report sooner and accepted that the Minister had been placed in a difficult position, he concluded that a decision should have awaited the report’s availability.
The court granted an order of certiorari quashing the decision communicated by the 5 July 2002 fax. The order addressed that refusal to revoke; the judgment does not state that the deportation order itself was quashed.