The High Court quashed a decision refusing one applicant permission to remain in Ireland after finding that a required part of his interview report was missing. Mr Justice Max Barrett ordered that the permission-to-remain issue be reconsidered. The court refused the other relief sought in five linked judicial review applications.
The judgment, delivered on 14 January 2019, concerned applications by I.X. and her daughters, X.X. and F.X., and by N.Y. and J.Z. The X applicants challenged recommendations that they should not be declared refugees. N.Y. and J.Z. challenged decisions made under the International Protection Act 2015.
The court rejected the X applicants’ argument that external panel members had carried out the statutory investigations into their claims. It accepted affidavit evidence that civil servant caseworkers were responsible for the investigations and findings, while panel members assisted under their direction. The court found no breach of the Refugee Act 1996 and refused the applications.
In N.Y.’s case, the court also rejected the claim that a panel member had taken over statutory functions. It found that the caseworker reviewed the file and made the relevant decisions. But the court separately considered the report of N.Y.’s personal interview under section 35 of the 2015 Act.
That report did not include the separate part required by section 35(13)(b) for information that, in the international protection officer’s opinion, would be relevant to a decision on permission to remain. The State argued that the requirement was directory rather than mandatory. The judge disagreed: the provision was mandatory, and recording relevant information in another part of the report did not meet the statutory requirement. The court said the missing protection meant the later permission-to-remain process was fundamentally flawed.
The court quashed the Minister’s decision refusing N.Y. permission to remain, notified by letter on 14 May 2018, and remitted that issue for fresh consideration. It did not find an implied duty to question applicants at interview about permission to remain; the section 35(13)(b) duty concerned the interview record.
The court dismissed J.Z.’s claims that the examination of his application was unlawful and that the panel member had exercised statutory decision-making functions. It also found no breach of the respondents’ duty of candour in any of the applications. All other relief sought was refused.