The Supreme Court has allowed two asylum applicants to appeal High Court decisions refusing to extend the statutory 14-day deadline for bringing certain judicial review challenges under immigration law.
The ruling concerned Anthony Benson, a Nigerian citizen, and Mohammed Ahmed Saalim, who came to Ireland from Somalia. Both had sought extra time to challenge decisions affecting their immigration or refugee status under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000.
The immediate issue was not whether either man should ultimately receive an extension. It was whether a High Court refusal to extend time was itself subject to the Act's special restriction on appeals to the Supreme Court.
Section 5 provides that High Court decisions on applications for leave to seek judicial review are generally final unless the High Court certifies that the case raises a point of law of exceptional public importance and that an appeal is desirable in the public interest.
Chief Justice Keane said there were strong reasons for treating a refusal to extend time, once the 14-day period had expired, as effectively determining the application for leave. However, he noted that other members of the court considered there was a plausible contrary interpretation: that the leave application could not be regarded as having been made until time had first been extended.
Because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction from High Court decisions except where legislation clearly provides otherwise, Keane C.J. concluded that the wording of the 2000 Act was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to remove the right of appeal in these circumstances.
The appeals were therefore allowed. The court was to proceed separately to consider whether Benson or Saalim had shown good and sufficient reasons for extending time.
The judgment also expressly left open another procedural question: whether an applicant can make a standalone application for extra time before judicial review proceedings have been issued.