The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to a deportation order after finding that an Ethiopian applicant’s submissions about his treatment in Italy did not establish a case under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 1 March 2019. He allowed the applicant to amend his grounds to argue that the Minister for Justice had failed to apply the law to the facts when considering whether his experiences in Italy engaged Article 3. The judge said the proposed ground was arguable for the purpose of allowing the amendment, but that did not mean it would succeed.
The applicant had been granted international protection in Italy in 2014 after a claim of torture was accepted. He came to Ireland in 2016 and later sought asylum here, but withdrew that application after Italian authorities confirmed his protection status. The applicant’s submissions seeking permission to remain in Ireland described difficulties finding work and accommodation in Italy and said he had lacked access to mental health services. The judge noted that those submissions did not expressly rely on Article 3.
The applicant argued that a failure to provide basic necessities in circumstances incompatible with human dignity could engage Article 3. The judge held that it would be inappropriate to quash the deportation decision for failing to consider a point that had not been put to the Minister. He also found that the Minister had considered the substance of the applicant’s case under section 50 of the International Protection Act 2015, which addresses the risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment on return.
The judge added that, even if the applicant could raise the argument and the Minister’s consideration had been inadequate, the circumstances described fell short of the high threshold for engaging Article 3. The court therefore accepted the respondents’ submissions on the merits.
The judge rejected the State’s procedural objections concerning the amendment, the timing of the proceedings and the court’s discretion. He extended time to the date the application was made, but dismissed the judicial review. The court did not quash the deportation order.