The High Court refused two Nigerian applicants leave to seek judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke their deportation orders, and refused an interlocutory injunction against deportation. Mr Justice John MacMenamin delivered judgment on 12 January 2007.
The applicants, a mother and her minor son, had arrived in Ireland in February 2005 and sought asylum. After their asylum claims were refused, the Minister made deportation orders on 7 February 2006. The applicants did not challenge the validity or procedure of those original orders in these or other proceedings.
Their new solicitors applied on 28 February 2006 under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to have the orders revoked. They relied on country information about detention and treatment of people returned to Nigeria, and medical material concerning the mother, including an epigastric hernia and counselling. The Minister refused the application on 1 March. The applicants sought leave for judicial review on 9 March and obtained an interim injunction preventing deportation; it was continued by consent pending the hearing.
The applicants argued that the Minister had failed to consider the new material and their asserted risk of detention if returned to Nigeria. The Minister’s evidence described arrangements for monitoring returnees and said detention beyond identity checks had not occurred in the deponent’s experience. That was evidence put before the court, not a separate finding about every returnee.
The judge found that key medical information predated the deportation decision and that the counselling had been ongoing since 2005. He also found that much of the country information was old, undated or not shown to concern people in the applicants’ position. The applicants had not adequately explained why the material was not raised earlier or provided evidence supporting their account that previous advisers had failed to submit it. The court concluded that the delay and manner of presenting the material raised concerns about candour and good faith.
The court held that the applicants had not established arguable grounds for leave, even applying the lower arguability threshold. It said an application to revoke an existing deportation order must rely on matters materially different from those presented, or capable of being presented, before the order; the court referred to unusual, special or changed circumstances. It also refused the injunction: the original orders remained valid and had not been challenged, and the evidence did not meet the higher threshold for interlocutory relief. The court made no separate case for the minor’s circumstances. It rejected the applications.