The Supreme Court has allowed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to appear as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, in an appeal concerning the refusal of refugee status to an anonymised applicant.
The court’s judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Keane on 14 July 2003, says the UNHCR may make written and oral submissions on a legal question certified by the High Court. The organisation must bear its own costs of appearing.
The appeal follows a High Court order of 5 November 2002 refusing the applicant’s judicial review application. The High Court certified that a point of law raised an issue of exceptional public importance and that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court. The question is whether a refugee appeal tribunal acts within its powers when it considers the possibility that an applicant could relocate within their own country when deciding whether they meet the statutory definition of a refugee.
The applicant had sought, among other relief, to quash the refusal of refugee status, declarations that sections 16 and 17(1) of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, were unconstitutional, and an extension of time for seeking judicial review if necessary. The Supreme Court’s judgment on the UNHCR’s application does not decide those issues or the underlying appeal.
Neither the applicant nor the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform opposed the UNHCR’s application. The court said it had inherent jurisdiction to appoint an amicus where the assistance might help determine an issue before it. It said this power should be exercised sparingly and that, in an appeal, an amicus’s assistance is confined to legal arguments and supporting materials.
The court distinguished an amicus from an intervener: an amicus has no right of appeal and is not normally entitled to present evidence. It considered that the appeal raised a public law issue and that the eventual judgment could affect people beyond the parties. It therefore concluded that the UNHCR could assist with the certified question.