The High Court has dismissed a judicial review by an anonymised applicant challenging his lack of access to social assistance and permission to work while subject to a deportation order.
In a judgment delivered on 29 July 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the claims had not been set up in a way that entitled the applicant to relief. The court also held that his loss of contact with his solicitors and failure to facilitate his deportation independently weighed against granting relief.
The applicant had sought asylum in Ireland in 1999, but his application was refused. A deportation order was made in 2011. His 2015 application to have that order revoked was refused. The present judicial review was filed in January 2016.
At an earlier stage, the court refused leave to challenge the 2011 deportation order because the challenge was years out of time. It also declined to permit a challenge to the refusal to revoke the order, finding no basis to extend time. Leave was granted to pursue claims concerning social assistance and the prohibition on employment, including constitutional and European Convention arguments.
The judge said the applicant had not applied to the relevant housing authority for accommodation or to the HSE for a medical card, and had not challenged any decision by those bodies. He said those complaints could not be pursued in the proceedings as constituted. The judgment noted that the applicant had received treatment in the Accident and Emergency Department at St Vincent’s Hospital.
On social assistance, the court said statutory provisions treated a person subject to a deportation order as not habitually resident, while habitual residence was a condition for supplementary welfare allowance. The applicant had not challenged those statutory provisions. The court said the work restriction also arose from legislation; an employment permit application and, if refused or left undecided, a properly framed challenge would have been required.
The judge further held that the applicant had gone out of contact with his solicitors from early June 2016 and was not entitled to seek discretionary relief while unavailable to receive instructions or comply with court directions. He also concluded that the constitutional and ECHR rights asserted had not been established as applying in the circumstances described.
Finally, the court said the applicant had not meaningfully engaged with the Minister or Algerian authorities to facilitate his removal. The judgment records that Algerian authorities had no record of him and that he said his identity documents were lost. The court dismissed the claim. The judgment does not order his deportation; it dismisses the judicial review claims before it.