The High Court struck out a judicial review challenge to the possible deportation of a Congolese applicant after his request for permission to reapply for international protection was refused. The court discharged an interim injunction and made no order as to costs.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 4 November 2019. The applicant, identified as B.A.L. (Democratic Republic of Congo), had arrived in Ireland on 12 March 2015 and applied for international protection. His application was refused at first instance and on appeal. A deportation order was made on 5 June 2018.
On 30 May 2019, he applied to the Minister for Justice and Equality for consent under section 22 of the International Protection Act 2015 to make a further protection application. He also sought an undertaking that he would not be deported while that request was pending. The Department declined to give an undertaking, saying enforcement of the deportation order remained an operational matter for the Garda National Immigration Bureau.
The judicial review sought a declaration that deporting him at that stage would be unlawful and an injunction preventing deportation until a lawful section 22 decision. The judge said the concern that deportation might occur before a decision was made was speculative. Leave was granted on 22 July 2019, together with an injunction until 31 July. The judgment noted disagreement about whether the injunction was expressly continued beyond that date.
The Minister refused the section 22 application on 30 July 2019. Both sides agreed that this made the case moot, leaving costs as the only issue. The judge found that the decision would have happened regardless of the proceedings, so there was no causal link between the proceedings and the event that rendered them moot. He concluded there was no sufficient reason to depart from the usual approach of making no costs order in moot proceedings. He also said the speculative nature of the claim did not automatically entitle the respondent to costs.
The court ordered that the proceedings be struck out, the injunction be discharged because its basis had ended, and there be no order as to costs. The judgment referred to Supreme Court authorities on costs in moot proceedings and to an earlier High Court summary of that jurisprudence.