The High Court has sent Y.Y.’s application to have a deportation order revoked back to the Minister for Justice and Equality for fresh consideration. It adjourned the separate question of whether the original deportation order is valid until after that process concludes.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2017, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys weighed whether to decide the challenge to the original order immediately or allow the Minister to reconsider the review decision that had upheld it. The court had quashed the second decision under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 in an earlier ruling, leaving the original order’s validity unresolved.
Counsel for Y.Y. argued that the original order should now be quashed, citing three decisions in the matter, Y.Y.’s detention and its length, later information and a changed ministerial analysis, and the availability of another procedure. The judgment records that counsel did not contend that detention would become unlawful if the deportation order remained in place. It also records the respondent’s submission that the proceedings had taken time in part because Y.Y. had previously taken a generalised approach.
The judge said the number of earlier decisions was relevant but did not create an arbitrary limit on further consideration. He recognised the impact of detention and said a time limit on the Minister’s fresh decision could mitigate delay. He also said the court had not established that the process was flawed or that the Minister could not lawfully refuse to revoke the order.
The judgment noted that the earlier decisions had been quashed for procedural reasons: the first did not explain a different view from the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, while the second failed to give notice of a document relied on. Whether the Minister’s conclusion about the disuse of Antar Barracks was unreasonable had not yet been determined.
In balancing the considerations, the judge gave weight to the public interest and to convictions and conduct described in earlier judgments. He ordered the section 3(11) application remitted for fresh consideration. After hearing counsel, he will set deadlines, including for any further submissions by Y.Y. The validity of the original deportation order was adjourned to a date to be set after the ministerial process. The ruling does not decide that validity.