The High Court has allowed Y.Y. to amend a judicial review challenge to a deportation order, granted leave to pursue the case on the amended grounds and permitted a further affidavit. The ruling did not decide whether the deportation order or the Minister’s later decision was valid.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 17 October 2017. The case concerns the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of a second application to revoke the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The applicant’s earlier challenge had been heard on a telescoped basis, combining stages of the proceedings.
The court permitted amendments concerning the new ministerial decision, including proposed challenges based on fair procedures, irrationality and the Minister’s consideration of changes in Algeria. It also allowed the applicant to retain the original grounds alleging inadequate reasons and an unreasonable or irrational finding that removal would not breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, the judge refused a proposed amendment to expand the challenge to the original deportation order. He excluded a proposed change to ground (vi), which would have relied on material later put before the Minister, and a new ground (vii), which argued that the Minister had abandoned or failed to adopt the original reasons. The judge said new issues about the later decision should be considered as challenges to that decision, and the two decisions should not be elided. The permission to amend was without prejudice to arguments the Minister could later make against substantive relief, including whether the applicant could rely on material that was not before the decision-maker.
The judge also granted leave for the proceedings to continue in a non-telescoped form, with a relatively short timetable for pleadings. He allowed a further affidavit indicating that the applicant would have submitted a response from Professor Joffé, while leaving the Minister free to object to its use at the substantive hearing.
The ruling de-redacted the earlier judgment only to permit publication of the country name. It also continued a stay on the applicant’s actual removal from Ireland until 14 days after the High Court proceedings are determined. That stay is conditional on the applicant continuing to undertake not to challenge the legality of his detention.