The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by an anonymised applicant challenging the refusal of a 2012 application for subsidiary protection. The court considered only grounds 1, 2 and 3, for which leave had been granted, and concluded that none justified an order of certiorari.
The applicant had applied for asylum in Ireland in August 2005. That application and a subsequent appeal were rejected. After a proposal to deport was issued in September 2008, she applied for subsidiary protection; that application was refused in July 2011. A first judicial review challenging that refusal was later resolved by consent, with certiorari granted. A deportation order was made in September 2011. The applicant made a further subsidiary protection application in June 2012, which was refused in November that year. Leave to challenge that refusal was granted in December 2012. The case then remained on hold for nearly five years pending resolution of related proceedings.
On the first ground, the applicant was no longer pursuing a claim to an oral hearing. The judge addressed other complaints raised in submissions, including the use of country information, the opportunity to update submissions and whether material had been considered. He said some arguments went beyond the pleaded grounds and could not be introduced through submissions. As to the matters properly pleaded, he found no basis for certiorari.
The second ground challenged the former procedure under which a subsidiary protection application followed a proposal to deport. The judge held that this was a legislative choice and did not unlawfully inhibit an application. He also noted that the applicant had made an application and it had been considered; she had not shown that her EU law rights lacked an effective examination.
On the third ground, the judge rejected the related challenge to the decision-maker’s independence, following the approach taken in an earlier High Court decision. A separate sub-ground was not pursued. The court dismissed the application. The judgment does not set out any further order.