The High Court has refused an application by a man held in Limerick Prison who sought an inquiry into the legality of his detention and an order of habeas corpus. Mr Justice Barniville ruled that the application did not establish a basis to question his arrest or detention under a deportation order.
The applicant, who was not legally represented, said in an undated, unsworn statement that he had been arrested at his home in Tralee on 30 April 2018 and taken to Limerick Prison for deportation to South Africa. He said he had come to Ireland as an asylum seeker in 1999, had worked here, and had a wife and four children living in Ireland, including two Irish citizen daughters.
He said he had been convicted in 2010 of an offence or offences involving cannabis resin and sentenced to seven years in prison, but was released after four and a half years. He said a deportation order was made after his release, which the judge inferred was probably in 2015, while he was undertaking community service. He asked the court to stop and revoke the order, citing its impact on his family.
The judge said Article 40.4 allows a detained person to seek an inquiry, but does not permit an indirect challenge to a deportation order. The applicant had not provided a copy of the order or identified its date. The statement gave no legal ground for finding the order, arrest or detention unlawful, and did not suggest that required procedures had not been followed or that there had been a fundamental denial of justice.
The court noted that a deportation order may be challenged by judicial review, subject to a statutory 28-day period. On the applicant’s account, the order was likely made in 2015, and there was no indication it had been successfully challenged. The judge also said that family circumstances, employment and the conviction were matters the Minister was required to consider when deciding whether to make a deportation order. The applicant’s early release from prison did not prevent the Minister from exercising deportation powers.
The judge was not satisfied that the application should be treated as an application for leave to seek judicial review, or that the applicant should be invited to convert it into one, because no basis for challenging the order or resulting detention had been advanced. He refused the application. The court did not direct an Article 40.4 inquiry, make a conditional habeas corpus order, or revoke the deportation order.