The High Court has refused an interlocutory injunction sought to prevent the deportation of Kristian Woke, also named in the proceedings as Uche Ernest Nwoke, while he challenged an amended deportation order.
Mr Justice Mac Eochaidh delivered the judgment on 11 March 2015. The order had originally been made on 4 January 2012 and required the applicant to leave Ireland by 29 January that year. An amendment dated 12 June 2014 added “a.k.a. Uche Ernest Nwoke” to the name on the order.
The judgment recounts that the applicant had applied for asylum in 2006 as Kristian Woke and was refused. Irish authorities later received information from the UK Border Agency which led them to believe he was Nigerian, had previously been deported from the UK to Nigeria, and had held a Nigerian passport. The applicant’s representatives disputed the allegations. The Minister gave them an opportunity to respond before deciding to amend the order.
The applicant argued that the process failed to comply with fair procedures and provisions of the Immigration Act 1999. He also alleged that the Minister and an authorised officer had failed to comply with the prohibition on refoulement in section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996.
The judge said an amendment process must explain the proposal and give the applicant an opportunity to reply, but need not reopen every issue that would arise when making a deportation order in the first instance. He also said the Minister must revisit refoulement where an amendment would make removal to a territory not considered under the original order a possibility. On the evidence before him, he found that the Minister had fairly considered the refoulement issue and that the applicant had been given an extensive opportunity to address the proposal.
The court concluded that the applicant had not shown an arguable case that the underlying decision was illegal. It also noted that the challenge had been brought nine months after the amendment, with no explanation for the delay. Separately, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Okunade v Minister for Justice, the judge said an injunction against deportation required exceptional circumstances beyond the ordinary disruption of deportation. A romantic relationship was suggested by counsel, but had not been stated on affidavit. The judge said that even if established, it would not by itself displace the default position.
The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused. The ruling concerned interim relief; the judgment does not determine a final judicial review of the amended order.