The High Court granted leave for judicial review proceedings in two asylum cases selected to test questions about whether Nigerian applications could lawfully be prioritised and what counts as an effective remedy under EU asylum procedures.
Mr Justice Cooke said the court was deciding whether the cases could proceed under restrictions in the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. It did not decide whether the ministerial direction or Ireland’s asylum procedures were lawful. The judge said those legal questions did not need to be interpreted in detail at this stage.
Both applicants had appealed against reports by the Refugee Applications Commissioner before starting judicial review proceedings. One appeal was still pending; the other had concluded with a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision. The court said the proceedings raised substantial legal grounds concerning the EU Procedures Directive, including whether it permits blanket prioritisation by country of origin and whether the Tribunal appeal or High Court judicial review provides the required effective remedy.
In the case concerning the concluded appeal, the court extended time and granted leave to challenge the Tribunal’s decision and the ministerial direction. It refused to extend time to challenge the Commissioner’s report, finding no good and sufficient reason for the delay. It also said challenging that report was unnecessary because the legal issues could be examined through a challenge to the Tribunal decision.
In the case with the pending appeal, the court extended time to 12 November 2008 and granted leave to challenge the Commissioner’s report and recommendation and the ministerial direction. It also granted leave to seek an injunction stopping processing of that asylum application while the judicial review proceeded. The judge said it would be unjust to require the applicant to complete an appeal while uncertainty remained about whether that appeal met the Directive’s requirements.
The court’s ruling allowed specified claims and remedies to be pursued; it did not grant the requested final relief or determine the asylum applications. The judgment also records that, in the concluded-appeal case, no complaint was made that the interview or report breached procedural standards apart from the general allegation that Nigerian claims received less detailed consideration.