The High Court has refused a Syrian woman’s application for judicial review of her transfer from a reception centre in Balseskin, Dublin, to accommodation in Athlone in March 2022. The court found she had not shown that the transfer breached her rights under the Constitution, the EU Charter or the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 3 April 2023, Ms Justice Hyland first concluded that the proceedings were moot. The applicant had been granted refugee status, so the Minister no longer had an obligation to provide her with reception conditions. The judge said the applicant had not pleaded the conditions needed to establish an extant damages claim that would justify determining the case despite that change. However, she proceeded to consider the substantive issues in case her mootness conclusion was wrong.
The applicant had originally sought orders relating to a further vulnerability assessment and the decision to designate Athlone as her accommodation. Those claims were no longer pursued after a second assessment took place on 28 April 2022 and refugee status was granted. The remaining claims were a declaration that the 11 March transfer breached her rights and damages.
The court noted that an assessment in August 2021 had found the applicant did not need special reception conditions, and that finding had not been challenged in the proceedings. A further assessment was discretionary under the Reception Conditions Regulations, the judge said; the regulations did not require it to be completed within 30 days or require the transfer to be delayed until it took place.
The judge also found the material available to the authorities before the move did not establish a need to delay it. Medical correspondence referred to memory loss and mobility concerns and to consultant appointments, but the court said it contained no detailed account of restrictions on suitable accommodation. It also noted that no medical evidence from those consultations had been provided.
After the move, the applicant and her son complained that she could not step into the shower and had difficulty using the toilet with her son’s assistance because of the bathroom’s size. The judge accepted that the conditions were less than ideal and caused difficulty, but said the mobile home had private bathroom, bedroom and kitchen facilities and access to medical treatment. She concluded the circumstances did not amount to the level of fundamental rights breach required to establish the pleaded claim.
The court refused the application for relief. The judgment did not make an award of damages.