Judgment: 2006-07-10 · Court archive

Supreme Court rejects bid to halt deportation while appeal proceeds

The court declared that a statutory certificate was not required for the appeal concerning the Minister’s refusal to revoke a deportation order, but refused the other relief sought.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Lidia Cosma (Applicant)
  • Mr Justice McCracken
What

The court declared that a statutory certificate was not required for the appeal concerning the Minister’s refusal to revoke a deportation order, but refused the other relief sought.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Cosma’s counsel conceded that the appeal had to be limited to that issue because a certificate had been refused in relation to other matters challenged in the proceedings. The court said the only issue remaining was whether to restrain deportation until it determined the appeal.

The Supreme Court refused an injunction to prevent the deportation of Lidia Cosma while her appeal was pending, but declared that she did not need a certificate to bring the part of the appeal concerning the Minister’s refusal to revoke her deportation order.

In a judgment delivered on 10 July 2006, Mr Justice McCracken said the appeal was properly before the court insofar as it challenged the Minister’s decision under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The respondent’s counsel conceded that the certificate requirement in section 5(3) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 did not apply to that challenge.

Cosma’s counsel conceded that the appeal had to be limited to that issue because a certificate had been refused in relation to other matters challenged in the proceedings. The court said the only issue remaining was whether to restrain deportation until it determined the appeal.

A valid deportation order was in force. The appeal concerned whether the Minister should have revoked it; the order’s validity itself was not under appeal. The judgment noted that the High Court had held the deportation order valid, and that finding could not be challenged in this appeal.

Mr Justice McCracken said the Supreme Court had inherent power to make interim orders to protect parties’ rights, but should use that power sparingly and only where an order would not conflict with undisputed rights. An appeal does not automatically stay execution, under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Granting the injunction sought would thwart the valid deportation order and, to some degree, prevent the operation of a valid High Court order, the judgment said. The judge said a previously unknown fact of sufficient gravity might conceivably justify an injunction in some circumstances, but no such case had been made.

The court granted the declaration that the certificate requirement did not apply to the section 3(11) challenge and refused all other relief claimed. The judgment did not determine the appeal on whether the Minister should have revoked the deportation order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review