The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals by the Minister for Justice after finding that changes to Irish law had made the disputes over the United Kingdom’s designation as a safe third country moot. The court did not decide whether the original designation or the decisions affecting the applicants were lawful.
The appeals concerned two anonymised applicants, FOM and KE. The High Court had quashed decisions that treated their international protection applications as inadmissible and, in FOM’s case, a return order directing him to the UK. It had also declared that designating the UK as a safe third country under the 2020 order was contrary to Ireland’s EU law obligations.
The Minister appealed. The Minister argued, among other things, that Ireland had not opted into the EU Recast Asylum Procedures Directive and that the High Court was wrong to treat its safeguards as applicable through the Dublin III Regulation. The applicants challenged other aspects of the High Court judgment by cross-appeal.
The Court of Appeal focused on legislative changes enacted in 2024. The new law revoked the order designating the UK as a safe third country, and no replacement order had been made by the appeal hearing on 16 December 2024. It also added safeguards concerning risks of serious harm and breaches of fundamental rights. The court said any future consideration of the applicants under the new provisions would require fresh decisions.
Because no decisions had been taken about either applicant under the amended law, the court concluded that a decision on the Minister’s appeals would have no practical effect on a live dispute. It declined to hear the appeals despite the legal issues raised, reasoning that doing so would amount to giving an opinion on legislation that had been repealed or amended. The court also rejected the Minister’s reliance on section 27 of the Interpretation Act 2005, finding that it did not displace the applicants’ entitlements under the new safeguards.
The applicants withdrew their cross-appeal after the court indicated that it had decided the Minister’s appeals were moot. The court therefore dismissed both appeals and the cross-appeal. It expressed a provisional view that the applicants were entitled to their costs, but made no final costs order. It directed the applicants to file written submissions on costs within 14 days, with the Minister’s response due within a further 14 days.