The High Court granted limited leave for a woman and her minor child to pursue a judicial review over a decision affirming their transfer to the UK under the Dublin III rules. Leave was refused on the remaining grounds.
The applicants sought to quash the International Protection Appeals Tribunal’s decision of 17 February 2017, which affirmed an earlier transfer decision. They argued, among other things, that the tribunal had failed to consider the child’s best interests and their family and private life rights, and that the transfer request cited the wrong Dublin III provision. They also raised a risk of serious harm to the woman in the UK, alleging that she had been trafficked there.
The court’s judgment addressed only specified parts of the application. Issues concerning Article 17 discretion were to be opened and adjourned, with the applicants receiving the benefit of an injunction, pending completion of a separate judgment on that provision. The court said its decision was confined to the other identified grounds.
On the alleged risk in the UK, the court said the applicant’s stated concern was that a woman called Josephine in Manchester, described as running a brothel, might locate her and force her into prostitution. The judge held that this alleged, localised risk did not make it arguable that the applicant could not safely be returned to the UK. The judgment also noted that the applicant had not said she reported the alleged trafficking to UK authorities.
The court rejected as beyond the scope of judicial review the argument that the authorities should have investigated possible dangers to the child that had not been raised before the tribunal. It also found that no family or private life rights in Ireland had been identified to the tribunal for consideration.
The tribunal had acknowledged an error in the takeback request’s reference to the applicable Dublin III provision. The judge held that it was not arguable that this error invalidated the UK’s acceptance, the earlier transfer decision or the tribunal’s decision, given that the UK’s acceptance and the later decisions referred to the correct provision.
The application will proceed on the specified reliefs and grounds, including the Article 17 issues. Leave was refused for the balance of the claim. The ruling was at the leave stage; it did not determine the substantive judicial review.