The Supreme Court has dismissed Joseph Obinna Arisukwu’s appeal against the refusal of his habeas corpus application, affirming the High Court’s finding that he was lawfully detained pending deportation.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 9 March 2006, concerned the detention of Mr Arisukwu at Cloverhill Prison after an attempted deportation on 18 October 2005. His deportation order itself was not under challenge in the habeas corpus proceedings; he raised issues about process and fair procedures.
Mr Arisukwu had applied for residency as the parent of an Irish-born child. His applications were refused. He later sought reconsideration and supplied further documents, including a birth certificate recording his parentage. The judgment says there was an unresolved difficulty about the dates on which some material was provided to the authorities, and that he received no substantive reply to later correspondence.
On 18 October, Mr Arisukwu presented himself to immigration authorities and was told he would be removed that evening. He said, “I’m going nowhere.” After judicial review proceedings were initiated, he was arrested and placed in a vehicle heading for the airport. Detective Sergeant John Stratford testified that Mr Arisukwu attacked and bit officers in the vehicle and kicked the sergeant, causing him briefly to lose control. That evidence was tested in cross-examination. The officers changed vehicles at Mountjoy Garda Station and continued to the airport.
An interim injunction was granted that evening, preventing deportation until a court return date. The Supreme Court recounted the sergeant’s evidence that he then decided to detain Mr Arisukwu because he believed he intended to avoid removal, based on his statement and behaviour. Mr Arisukwu was taken to Cloverhill Prison. The High Court later refused his Article 40 application, holding that the detention was lawful.
On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that maintaining an intention to deport, subject to court orders, amounted to contempt or prejudged the judicial review proceedings. It also dismissed the access-to-courts and fair-hearing grounds. The court noted that the judicial review leave application had been refused and no other proceedings remained pending by the time of the appeal.
A separate ground concerning deportation while immigration judicial review proceedings were pending was withdrawn after counsel established that Mr Arisukwu’s case had proceeded under ordinary judicial review rules. The Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the broader statutory issue. Its decision was limited to this habeas corpus appeal: it affirmed the High Court judgment and dismissed the three grounds advanced.