Mr Justice Charleton has agreed that the judgment of Hogan J should be upheld in an appeal concerning the delegation of ministerial powers to officials in deportation decisions.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2015, Charleton J said the power of ministers to delegate decision-making to officials formed part of the State’s inherited administrative system. He described the question of whether legislation prevented a particular delegation as one of statutory interpretation.
The judge said a decision made by an official in the minister’s name remained the minister’s decision, and the minister remained responsible for it. A minister could personally exercise the relevant power at any time, he said, while officials could refer matters to the minister through proper channels in appropriate cases.
Charleton J said courts should not determine how the relationship between a minister and officials was managed. Individual cases available to a court did not necessarily establish whether an administrative system was efficient.
The judgment set out the stages through which a person seeking refugee status could present a claim: an interview and hearing before the Refugee Applications Commissioner, an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and, after an unsuccessful recommendation, an opportunity to make representations on subsidiary protection through a “three options letter” from the minister. The judge said the process provided ample opportunity to make a case, while observing that it could be used to delay an ultimate decision.
Charleton J agreed with MacMenamin J that the legislation did not require the minister to decide deportation cases personally. He said that, by the deportation stage, substantial material would exist about the migrants’ credibility, background and motivation. Delegation, he said, enabled a busy department to fulfil an otherwise impossible task without removing the minister’s responsibility.
The supplied extract records Charleton J’s agreement that Hogan J’s judgment should be upheld and his agreement with MacMenamin J. It does not state the formal order disposing of the appeal.