The High Court refused an interlocutory injunction that would have prevented the transfer of an anonymised Bangladeshi applicant to the United Kingdom while his judicial review proceedings continued.
The proceedings challenge a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision affirming the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s determination that the UK was responsible for processing the applicant’s international protection claim under the Dublin III Regulation. The court’s decision concerned only the interim injunction application; it did not determine the underlying judicial review challenge.
The judgment records that the applicant sought asylum in Ireland in October 2014. UK authorities told the Commissioner that the applicant had held a UK student visa, issued in March 2013 and due to expire in May 2015. The authorities said his leave had been curtailed after his college stopped sponsoring him, and that there was no record of an asylum application or removal from the UK. At an interview in January 2015, the applicant accepted that the information supplied by UK authorities was correct.
The UK accepted a take-back request in February 2015 under the Dublin III Regulation. The Commissioner later notified the applicant that his claim would be transferred. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected his appeal on 10 June 2015 and affirmed the transfer order. The High Court had previously granted leave for judicial review and an interim injunction on 6 July 2015.
The applicant argued that information obtained from the UK had been unlawfully requested and disclosed, including under data protection rules. He also argued that Dublin III provisions meant the transfer could not proceed during the judicial review and that a six-month transfer deadline had expired.
The judge rejected the deadline argument, finding that the applicant’s appeal to the Tribunal had suspended the transfer and that the six-month period ran from the Tribunal’s final decision on 10 June 2015. He also held that EU law did not require Ireland to give the later judicial review an automatic suspensive effect: the Tribunal appeal provided the required effective remedy, and EU law did not require an additional review level with automatic suspension.
Applying the approach to interim injunctions in *Okunade v Minister for Justice*, the judge found no circumstance warranting departure from the default position that a prima facie valid State order should be implemented. The applicant’s wish to have his claim assessed in Ireland was insufficient, and the judge saw no likely irreversible adverse consequence from assessment in the UK. The court refused the injunction; the judgment did not decide the merits of the judicial review challenge.