The High Court found that the condition imposed on a woman seeking revocation of her deportation order was unlawful, as were her subsequent arrest and detention at the Dochas Centre.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2014, Mr Justice Robert Eagar said the Minister for Justice had made consideration of the woman’s request under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 conditional on her presenting to the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB). The judge held that this condition was not irrelevant to the decision the Minister had to make, and that imposing it exceeded the Minister’s authority in exercising that separate statutory role.
The case came before the court under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution, after the woman’s solicitor complained that she was being unlawfully detained. On 1 December 2014, the court ordered that she be produced and that the grounds for her detention be certified. She had been arrested on 20 November, when she attended the GNIB, and held at the Dochas Centre.
The judgment recounts that deportation orders had been made against the woman and her daughter in November 2009. In October 2014, her solicitors asked the Minister to revoke the orders. A Department letter said the request would not be considered until the woman presented to the GNIB, and that the request did not suspend the deportation order. The judge noted that the letter did not mention her daughter, who had an interest in the correspondence.
The woman attended the GNIB alone on 20 November because her daughter had to attend school. A detective said he arrested her after being told she had evaded deportation and there was no impediment to enforcing the order. The judgment also records the detective’s account that he asked about her daughter and spoke with a superior before deciding to arrest her.
The court concluded that the condition in the 28 October letter was unlawful and that the resulting arrest and detention were also unlawful. It directed that the woman was free from bail conditions imposed on 2 December. The judge did not decide the applicant’s constitutional or European Convention on Human Rights arguments, saying they did not need to be addressed in light of his finding.