Judgment: 2015-04-14 · Court archive

High Court refuses bid to add trafficking claims to judicial review

The court said the Garda investigation was ongoing and refused permission to amend the proceedings to challenge it or add the Garda immigration unit as a respondent.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 225

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Garda National Immigration Bureau
  • Colm Mac Eochaidh (Judge)
What

The court said the Garda investigation was ongoing and refused permission to amend the proceedings to challenge it or add the Garda immigration unit as a respondent.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh said the proposed amendments would change the case from one based on an alleged finding by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) that the mother was a trafficking victim to a new and contradictory complaint about the GNIB’s handling of the matter. The court had previously ruled, in an ex tempore judgment on 21 May 2014, that the RAT had made no such finding.

The High Court refused an application by a mother and her infant daughter to amend their judicial review proceedings to add the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) as a respondent and introduce new claims concerning an investigation into alleged human trafficking.

Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh said the proposed amendments would change the case from one based on an alleged finding by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) that the mother was a trafficking victim to a new and contradictory complaint about the GNIB’s handling of the matter. The court had previously ruled, in an ex tempore judgment on 21 May 2014, that the RAT had made no such finding.

The applicants sought to challenge a GNIB report dated 14 May 2014 and to require a Garda superintendent or higher-ranking officer to determine whether there were reasonable grounds to believe they might be victims of trafficking. They also sought to add the GNIB’s Human Trafficking Investigation and Co-ordination Unit as a respondent.

The judge refused to extend time to add the proposed respondent. He said the applicants’ lawyers had been aware of the unit’s alleged role before the original proceedings were brought, but no explanation had been given for failing to name it then.

The judge also refused permission to challenge the May report. He found it was not a final decision on whether the mother had been trafficked, but a step in an ongoing investigation. A later letter from a detective inspector said the investigation was continuing and asked whether the mother wished to make a statement. An affidavit from a detective garda said she had declined to make a complaint or statement and did not want further Garda involvement. The judge said progress was unlikely without her co-operation.

The proposed order requiring a senior GNIB officer to make a determination was also refused as premature and inappropriate while the investigation remained ongoing. The court therefore refused the application to amend the proceedings. The judgment addressed the proposed amendments; it did not determine whether the mother had been trafficked.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review