The High Court dismissed 14 judicial review applications challenging the reasons given for deportation orders made under the International Protection Act 2015. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 19 December 2018.
The applicants argued that the Minister for Justice and Equality had failed to give reasons for the orders, including a claim that separate reasons had to be provided at a separate stage. The Minister’s response included that the applicants’ pleadings alleged a failure to give reasons, rather than inadequate reasons.
The court said the statutory scheme required a deportation order once specified conditions were met. Those included refusals of refugee status, subsidiary protection and permission to remain, and satisfaction that the statutory provisions on refoulement and voluntary return did not prevent an order. In those circumstances, the court said, stating that the conditions were satisfied could be enough to explain the decision.
Using one applicant’s notification as a representative example, the judgment identified five reasons stated in the letter: the refusals of refugee and subsidiary protection declarations and permission to remain, and the Minister’s satisfaction that the relevant statutory provisions were complied with. The court held that the reasons related to the statutory scheme and were adequate.
The court also said reasons could be found in related documents, including earlier reports and review decisions, where the deportation notification referred to them. The judgment said the applicants were not left uncertain about where to find those reasons. It further noted that applicants had received statements of reasons for the proposed orders.
On the applicants’ argument about a possible change in circumstances between a review decision and a deportation order, the court said the Minister had given reasons for maintaining the earlier position in the review decision. None of the applicants had made submissions raising a material change in circumstances after the review decision and before the deportation order. The court also rejected a general obligation to explain why an exceptional power to depart from the usual procedure had not been used.
The judge added that even if there had been a formal defect in the notifications, the applicants had not established substantive prejudice. He said he would not have quashed the orders on that technical basis.
The court ordered that all 14 applications be dismissed. Any stays on deportation were discharged, and the Minister was released from any undertakings not to enforce the orders.