The High Court has found that the arrest and detention of a Mauritius national facing deportation were lawful, rejecting his application for release under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution.
The inquiry concerned whether the man’s arrest on 16 April 2013 was lawful and whether his subsequent detention at Cloverhill Prison was valid. The court made no order for his release at the conclusion of the inquiry.
The applicant had been subject to a deportation order signed in May 2012. He had been directed to report regularly to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) and to reside at the address given to the authorities. At a reporting appointment, Detective Garda Cullen asked whether he still lived at the Mountjoy Square address recorded in his presentation letters. The applicant confirmed that he did.
The applicant then accompanied gardaí to a shop on Dorset Street to collect a key and go to the stated address. His friend told the detective that the applicant did not live there and had never lived there. The applicant admitted he had lied. The detective arrested him under section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, suspecting that he intended to avoid removal from the State.
The applicant argued that the detective lacked reasonable grounds for that suspicion, pointing to his record of attending reporting appointments and to his ongoing proceedings challenging the deportation order. The court held that the false address and the admission constituted an act and information capable of supporting a reasonable suspicion that he might evade deportation. It concluded that the arrest decision was lawful when assessed objectively.
The court also rejected arguments that detention was unlawful because the arresting detective was unaware of travel arrangements being explored by GNIB, or lacked a personal intention to deport the applicant. It held that the deportation order showed a concluded intention to deport and that the arresting officer did not need to know the practical arrangements underway.
Other challenges concerned access to a solicitor, the applicant’s freedom during the address inquiry, and the written notification of detention to the prison governor. The court found no defect requiring release. It held that the applicant had been told he could contact a solicitor; that he voluntarily accompanied the gardaí before his arrest outside the shop; and that the notification’s wording did not invalidate his detention.
During the hearing, the court had released the applicant by consent under section 5(5), subject to signing on at a garda station daily. The court rejected the respondent’s argument that this made the inquiry moot, finding that the reporting condition significantly curtailed his liberty. It therefore completed the inquiry and found no infirmity in either the arrest or detention. The judgment did not determine the separate challenge to the deportation order.