The High Court has refused Mr C leave to appeal a prior decision concerning the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), ruling that his proposed point of law did not arise from that decision.
In a judgment delivered on 3 April 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett considered an application under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as amended. Mr C sought leave to appeal the decision in *C v. IPAT* [2018] IEHC 755.
Mr C proposed asking whether IPAT must explain why it appears to depart from an earlier decision where two decisions are “ex facie inconsistent”, and whether that obligation should be assessed by considering all the evidence in both applications or only evidence relating to the analogous material element.
The judge said the proposed question did not arise from the earlier decision. That decision had found the two applications did not involve the same, all but identical, or similar facts, but were different applications based on different evidence. It had therefore found that the IPAT decisions were not inconsistent and that the tribunal had not departed from its earlier decision in the way alleged.
The judge said the proposed question asked the High Court to review its own findings or proceed as if it had not made them. He refused to certify the proposed point of exceptional public importance and refused leave to appeal. The judgment records no further order.