The High Court has temporarily restrained the deportation of an Egyptian man after finding substantial grounds to examine whether immigration decision-makers should have awaited an imminent medico-legal report before making decisions against him.
S.H.E. applied for international protection in January 2026. He claimed that he had suffered serious ill-treatment and sexual violence while detained in Libya and feared that, if returned to Egypt and conscripted, a military medical examination could lead to him being perceived as gay and exposed to serious harm.
His protection application was rejected at first instance in February and on appeal in March. His solicitors had asked the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to arrange a medical examination under section 23 of the International Protection Act 2015, but that request was refused.
On 30 March, his solicitors told the Minister that a medico-legal report from Dr Joan Giller was expected by 30 April. A negative permission-to-remain review issued on 10 April. A deportation order and refoulement decision followed on 22 April without waiting for the report.
Dr Giller’s report, dated 29 April, recorded facial scarring and significant psychological symptoms. She considered his presentation highly consistent with his account of trauma and identified a serious mental-health risk if deportation became imminent.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan stressed that the report did not conclusively establish S.H.E.’s protection claim. She also criticised major failures by his solicitors, including not identifying the deportation order when judicial review leave was first sought and not promptly forwarding the medical report after receiving it.
However, the judge held that those failures should not prevent examination of potentially substantive issues concerning protection, refoulement and mental health. She allowed S.H.E. to amend his case to challenge the deportation and refoulement decisions.
Balancing the State’s interest in enforcing a presumptively valid deportation order against the possible consequences of removal, the court found the lesser risk of injustice lay in temporarily preserving the position. An interlocutory injunction restraining deportation was granted pending an expedited substantive hearing or further order.