Judgment: 2019-03-05 · Court archive

High Court judgment on Dublin accommodation challenge is incomplete in supplied copy

The two-page text records a challenge involving a mother and child seeking international protection, but its damaged and fragmentary ending does not reveal the court’s precise decision.

High Court · 2018 No. 882 JR

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The two-page text records a challenge involving a mother and child seeking international protection, but its damaged and fragmentary ending does not reveal the court’s precise decision.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

A High Court judgment delivered on 5 March 2019 concerned a mother and her minor daughter, both anonymised in the text, and their access to accommodation while seeking international protection. The supplied copy is incomplete and visibly garbled, so it does not establish the court’s final ruling or any order made.

The text says the mother requested accommodation for her daughter. It includes her account that an officer pointed to the child and said they had “obviously slept somewhere the night before” and should return there. A quoted notice says material reception conditions are available only to applicants without sufficient means to maintain an adequate standard of living, and asks the applicant to complete and return a declaration.

A vulnerability assessment is also described. The mother is characterised as a single parent with a history of depression, who relied on a cousin for childcare and on a support network in Dublin. The text says she feared her depression might return if that support was removed, affecting her ability to care for her daughter. A separate quoted view states: “I see no medical indications for her to be accommodated in Dublin.” The extract does not clearly identify the author of that view or the full context in which it was given.

The judgment discusses Regulation 8, including the Minister’s position that the question of whether the applicant had special reception needs was assessed within 30 working days and continued to be assessed after that period, including when proceedings began. The source also refers to the standard of having sufficient means for an adequate standard of living and to a requirement that material reception conditions be available when an international protection application is made.

The case heading identifies the respondent as the Minister for Justice and Equality. Although the surviving text includes the heading “Conclusion” and references certiorari, it cuts off before stating whether relief was granted, refused or otherwise dealt with. No precise outcome or operative order can safely be reported from this copy.

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