The High Court refused P. M.’s application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court on whether judicial review provides an effective remedy for challenging a refusal of international protection. A separate part of her application, concerning the independence and impartiality of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal, remained adjourned.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2012, Mr Justice Hogan considered whether the requirements for a certificate under section 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 were met. The court had previously refused leave to seek judicial review, while adjourning the Tribunal-independence issue pending the outcome of a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in D and A v Refugee Applications Commissioner.
P. M. argued that she had been denied an effective remedy because of a lack of institutional guarantees for the Tribunal and because judicial review was inadequate to challenge administrative decisions on international protection. The judge said it would be premature to decide the Tribunal issue while the reference was pending. He also said it was uncertain whether P. M. could benefit from any ruling in D and A, particularly because she had not raised the point at the time.
On the judicial review issue, the judge considered the Court of Justice’s decision in Diouf. He said Article 39 of the Procedures Directive required an effective remedy before an independent court or tribunal against a refusal of international protection, including the ability to challenge the reasons for the decision. Citing earlier Irish decisions, he concluded that judicial review allowed challenges to the validity and reasoning of administrative decisions. He also noted that P. M. had not explained how the available judicial review remedies were inadequate.
The judge found that the proposed appeal raised a point of law and that it was of exceptional public importance, given its potential effect on the international protection system. But he concluded that an appeal was not desirable in the public interest because the law had been clarified by Diouf and earlier judicial decisions. He therefore refused the certificate on the adequacy of judicial review. The ruling did not decide the adjourned Tribunal-independence issue, which remained pending the D and A reference.