The Supreme Court allowed appeals by I.G. and two minor appellants in a dispute involving the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ruling that the point raised met the threshold for challenging the Commissioner’s decision by judicial review.
In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2018, O’Donnell J said he agreed with Dunne J that the appeals should be allowed on the first issue identified in Dunne J’s judgment. The source excerpt does not set out that issue in detail or state the underlying challenge to the Commissioner’s decision.
O’Donnell J added observations on whether a later High Court judge had to follow an earlier decision granting leave to seek judicial review. He said a court is not legally bound, as a matter of stare decisis, to follow a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction. The approach in Irish Trust Bank v Central Bank of Ireland and In Re Worldport was that a High Court judge should not lightly depart from an earlier decision without strong reasons, but this was an approach rather than a binding rule.
He said that approach carried less force where the earlier decision was made on an ex parte application and had no reasoned judgment. Such applications involve only one side, and the material, authorities and time available may differ. O’Donnell J said a reasoned judgment is important when assessing whether an earlier decision overlooked significant authority or contained a clear error.
The judge also noted practical concerns: granting leave in one case on a generic legal issue may prompt many similar applications and bring cases to a halt while the issue is resolved. Even so, judicial prudence and humility might favour granting leave while expressing reservations, and a conscientious judge must retain the ability to depart from an earlier course.
The judgment excerpt records that the appeals were allowed. It does not reproduce the complete operative order or explain the final disposition of the judicial review proceedings.