The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by Romanian asylum seekers whose judicial review proceedings were struck out after the High Court reconsidered earlier orders granting them permission to bring the cases.
The appeals involved a large group led by Toma Adam and a separate case brought by Florin Iordache. The applicants sought to challenge asylum and deportation decisions, relying in part on alleged persecution in Romania and arguments concerning the European Convention on Human Rights.
A central issue was whether one High Court judge could set aside leave for judicial review previously granted by another judge on an application made without notice to the State.
Mrs Justice McGuinness held that the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to do so. However, she stressed that the power should be exercised only sparingly and in a very plain or exceptional case, because routinely reopening leave decisions would increase delay, costs and court hearings.
The applicants nevertheless faced a more fundamental problem. Judicial review examines whether a public decision was reached lawfully and fairly; it is not another appeal on the merits. The court found that the affidavits relied on broad claims of persecution and human-rights abuses but did not identify specific defects in the Minister’s decision-making procedures, breaches of fair procedures or evidence capable of supporting an irrationality challenge.
In the Toma Adam proceedings, the court also criticised the inclusion of a large and disparate group of applicants in one case. Some had already been allowed to remain in Ireland, while others had asylum applications that had not yet been finally determined.
Mr Iordache had separately claimed political persecution and persecution because of his homosexuality. The Supreme Court did not decide whether those allegations were true or whether any applicant might have been capable of bringing a properly pleaded challenge.
Instead, it held that the cases actually presented disclosed no sufficient judicial review grounds. Both appeals were dismissed and the High Court orders affirmed.