The High Court has refused an Algerian man’s application to extend the time for seeking judicial review of a 2004 deportation order, finding that he had not explained why proceedings were not started promptly after his solicitors received his file in June 2008.
The man had applied for refugee status in Ireland in October 2002, saying he faced a threat from terrorists in Algeria because he had served in the country’s armed forces. The Refugee Applications Commissioner recommended refusing his application in April 2003. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal affirmed that recommendation in November 2003.
Counsel later advised the Refugee Legal Service that the Tribunal may have applied the law on state protection incorrectly. A second counsel’s opinion, obtained by the Legal Aid Board, said there was a very strong prospect of success in judicial review proceedings. The Board nevertheless refused legal aid, stating that the proposed proceedings were likely to fail. Judicial review was not brought at that time, and the man was not told about the two opinions.
The Minister notified him in December 2004 that a deportation order had been made. His current solicitor received his file from the Refugee Legal Service on 24 June 2008. The man began the present proceedings by notice of motion on 2 December 2008, seeking leave to challenge the order and an extension beyond the statutory two-week limit.
Justice Irvine accepted that the failure to bring proceedings between December 2004 and the file’s transfer in June 2008 was significantly explained. But the man’s affidavit gave no reason for the additional delay after his solicitor received the file. The court said the solicitor then had both counsel’s opinions and the material needed to decide whether to apply. The respondents did not seriously dispute that the proposed challenge had a realistic prospect of success, but the court held that this did not explain the delay.
The judgment also considered the man’s marriage in October 2008 to a Polish national and the European Court of Justice’s decision in Metock. The court said the marriage did not justify extending time for this application. It refused a request to add grounds arguing that deportation would breach his EU rights, and stated that any possible remedy arising from Metock was outside the scope of the present application. The court did not decide whether the deportation order could lawfully be executed. It refused the extension of time.