The High Court has granted a Nigerian woman leave to seek judicial review of a 2010 deportation order, finding substantial grounds to argue that the decision relied on a material error about her access to HIV treatment and may breach her constitutional and European Convention rights.
In a judgment delivered on 5 September 2011, Mr Justice Hogan said the woman, identified as Ms MEO, was HIV positive and required lifelong antiretroviral therapy. Medical evidence before the court said that without treatment her condition would probably deteriorate rapidly and could prove fatal. She also had serious physical and mental health complications, including impaired cognitive ability.
The central dispute was whether she could effectively obtain treatment if returned to Nigeria. Her treating consultant considered that she had received effective antiretroviral therapy there before arriving in Ireland in 2006. The judge accepted that evidence, while noting that the woman denied having received such treatment.
However, Mr Justice Hogan said the Minister’s file memorandum had gone too far in treating her concerns about future access as unfounded. He pointed to her precarious financial position, declining health and cognition, and lack of family or an established support network in Nigeria. The judge said past access, about five years earlier, did not provide assurance that she could secure treatment again.
The court also granted leave to argue that the Minister’s reasoning was deficient, that the assessment of Nigerian country information was selective, and that fair procedures may have required disclosure of specialised reports relied on by the Minister. The Minister’s counsel disputed that the reports were specialised; the judge said the issue could be argued at the full hearing.
The woman was also granted leave to argue that deportation would breach Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution, which concerns protection of life and person, and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge said her circumstances—including possible loss of life-saving treatment, poverty, isolation and impaired cognition—raised substantial issues requiring adjudication.
The ruling is a permission-stage decision under section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. It allows the judicial review claims to proceed; it does not determine that the deportation order breached her rights or set out a final order overturning it.