The High Court refused an application by Wei Sung Jiang to quash a demand for identity documents made under the Immigration Act 2004, holding that an asylum claim did not exempt him from the requirement to produce documents or give a satisfactory explanation for their absence.
In a written judgment delivered on 16 November 2005, Mr Justice Michael Peart said there was no basis in the legislation for finding that a non-national who claimed asylum could not be required to produce identification. The judge found that Jiang had an opportunity to explain why he had no documents but had not reasonably attempted to do so. He said the Garda was entitled to charge him under section 12.
The case arose after Jiang arrived at Dublin Airport in August 2005 without a passport or other identification. The judgment records that he sought asylum and was later asked, through an interpreter, to produce documents. According to the Garda evidence, Jiang said a friend was looking after them. Jiang’s account was that he had given his Chinese identity card and other documents to a man who helped him travel to Ireland.
A Chinese National Identity Card, said to be in Jiang’s name, was later delivered anonymously to his solicitor and handed to Gardaí for verification. The judge noted that it had not been verified and said its later production did not affect the lawfulness of the earlier demand.
Jiang sought judicial review relief to quash the demand and a later order setting a hearing date for the charge. The High Court had already refused his habeas corpus application in an ex tempore ruling. It had temporarily restrained the charge hearing, but the listed date passed, so the issue concerning that hearing date was moot and required no further order.
The judge also found there was reasonable cause to suspect Jiang had been unlawfully in the State, and that claiming asylum did not exclude him from the class of people to whom the relevant detention provision applied. He refused the certiorari and declaratory relief sought. The judgment did not determine the pending section 12 charge; it addressed the legality of the demand and the requested judicial review orders.