The High Court refused an injunction sought by a mother and her child to prevent their deportation while they pursued judicial review of a decision refusing to revoke their deportation orders.
Mr Justice Humphreys gave his ruling on 10 August 2016 and issued written reasons in P.O. and G.E. v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2016] IEHC 543. He said he would assume, for the injunction application, that the applicants had an arguable case and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. He concluded that the balance of justice and convenience strongly weighed against granting interim relief.
The mother arrived in Ireland from Nigeria in August 2007 and claimed asylum. Her daughter was born in Ireland the following month, and an asylum claim was made on the child’s behalf. Both claims were rejected, and deportation orders were made in November 2008. The orders were not challenged by judicial review at the time.
In July 2015, the applicants sought revocation of the orders under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The Minister refused that request on 27 June 2016. The 28-day period to seek judicial review expired on 25 July, but the applicants filed their proceedings on 2 August. The judge said there was no affidavit explaining the delay or supporting an application to extend time.
The judgment records that the mother was arrested on 27 July 2016 and that the child was placed in the custody of the Child and Family Agency. The mother physically resisted deportation that day, frustrating her removal. The judge also noted that the applicants’ asylum claims had failed and that no protection issues specifically arose in the injunction application.
The judge identified disruption to the child’s family life as a factor favouring an injunction, but said it was outweighed by other considerations, including the unchallenged 2008 orders, the late challenge to the revocation decision, the mother’s prior evasion of immigration authorities and the weakness he considered apparent in the applicants’ case. He said the child was not personally responsible for the mother’s evasion, while discussing authorities on whether parental conduct could be considered in an injunction application.
The ruling concerned only the request for an injunction. The court did not decide the substantive judicial review. It listed the leave application in the asylum review for 10 October 2016 and directed the applicants to give the Chief State Solicitor’s Office a copy of the judgment by that date.