The High Court has refused an application to stay the operation of a first-instance international protection decision while a judicial review challenge is pending. It added the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) as a notice party to the proceedings.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 8 October 2018. The applicant, identified as R.H. (Albania), had challenged the refusal of his international protection application. The court had granted him leave to bring judicial review proceedings on 31 July 2018.
The judgment records that R.H. arrived in Ireland from Spain on 21 February 2017 using false Italian documents and was returned the following day. He returned on 11 March 2017 using false French documents and applied for international protection. The application was refused, and he was notified by letter dated 11 July 2018.
After receiving notice that an IPAT hearing was proposed for 16 October 2018, R.H. sought an adjournment. The tribunal refused that request by letter dated 2 October. He then applied to the High Court to add IPAT as a notice party and to stay the operation of the protection decision pending determination of the judicial review. In oral submissions, his counsel also sought a stay until the Court of Appeal determined related cases.
Counsel for R.H. argued that refusing a stay after leave had been granted would breach the EU principle of effectiveness. The judge rejected that argument, as well as points previously considered in related cases. He said an IPAT appeal is a full rehearing of fact and law on an “ex nunc” basis and can provide an effective remedy on the substance of the protection claim. A judicial review remained available to address legal objections to the first-instance decision, although the judge noted that the proceedings might later be argued to be moot if a fresh decision followed a full rehearing.
The court ordered that IPAT be added as a notice party and refused the stay. The judgment does not determine the underlying judicial review challenge or the merits of the protection claim.