The High Court has restrained the Minister for Justice and Equality from deporting a Bangladeshi national until his judicial review application is heard, citing an anticipated Supreme Court ruling on the principles governing deportation injunctions.
The order was made by Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh on 11 July 2016. He said it was granted in special circumstances and without assessing the merits of the applicant’s case. The Minister may apply to discharge the injunction on 48 hours’ notice if the Supreme Court delivers its judgment before the underlying proceedings are decided.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as S.B., sought asylum in Ireland in September 2009. He claimed to fear persecution in Bangladesh because he is Buddhist and wrongful prosecution on a murder charge. His refugee-status application was refused in July 2010. He did not apply for subsidiary protection and was later invited to seek leave to remain.
The applicant was informed on 4 February 2015 of the decision to deport him. He then sought judicial review, arguing that his return would breach the principle of non-refoulement and challenging the Minister’s assessment under section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. The High Court granted leave to bring the case and a temporary injunction on 9 March 2015. That injunction expired on 27 April 2015. The Minister later provided an undertaking not to deport him, but withdrew it in July 2015.
At a later hearing, the parties disputed whether the earlier grant of leave was enough to support an injunction. The judge said that where substantial grounds for challenging a deportation order had already been established, that would usually resolve whether there was a fair case to be tried. But he stressed that leave to seek judicial review does not itself suspend a deportation order, and that substantial grounds alone do not automatically justify an injunction.
The judge considered that the applicable approach was unsettled, including in light of competing arguments about the decisions in Okunade and Chigaru. The Supreme Court had heard an appeal concerning the injunction test and reserved judgment. Rather than decide the competing arguments or assess the merits, the High Court granted relief to avoid potentially duplicative appeals and submissions while the Supreme Court’s ruling was awaited. It assigned an early hearing date for the judicial review proceedings.