The High Court has refused a judicial review application challenging a deportation order made in the case of a minor identified in the redacted judgment as P. E. The court also ordered costs in favour of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The applicant had received leave to seek an order of certiorari on two grounds: that the Minister had not considered his age and the effect of deportation on him, and that submissions to the Minister about his age were ambiguous. The applicant’s case was that he had been treated as an adult for his asylum claim, although a report to the Minister said he was 17 when it was written.
That report referred to an authorised officer’s assessment that, based on his physical appearance and maturity, he should be treated as an adult for the asylum claim. The judgment says the Minister was apparently not told that the applicant had said he spent 12 years in school and started at age six. The applicant argued that the ambiguity should have prompted an inquiry.
The respondents submitted that the power to deport did not depend on whether a person had reached adulthood, and that the evidence did not show that the consideration of leave to remain would have differed depending on whether the applicant was a minor or an adult. The judge accepted those submissions. He said the Minister had to take account of age as it appeared from facts known or available, but had no duty under the relevant provision to investigate further.
The judge found that the information before the Minister was that the applicant was either 17 or 18, and that the Minister dealt with the case on that basis. He found no basis to challenge the deportation decision and refused the application. The judgment addresses the judicial review challenge; it does not state that the court itself made a deportation order.