The Supreme Court granted a Nigerian woman leave to seek judicial review of a deportation decision, limited to whether the Minister for Justice addressed her complaint that she faced female genital mutilation (FGM) if returned to Nigeria. The Court did not decide the judicial review itself, whether she faced that risk, or how the Minister should determine her case.
The appeal concerned a deportation order dated 12 July 2002. The woman had arrived in Ireland in December 1999, aged 17, and sought refugee status. She alleged that she would be forced into a marriage arranged by her father and subjected to FGM if returned. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal rejected her asylum appeal in June 2001, finding no credible connection between her circumstances and the claimed risk of forced marriage and FGM.
After the Minister proposed deportation, her solicitors made representations, including that return would expose her to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s order stated that the prohibition on refoulement had been complied with. The accompanying letter said the Minister had considered the statutory factors and representations, and that the public interest in maintaining the asylum and immigration systems outweighed features that might support permission to remain.
The Supreme Court considered the standard for reviewing administrative decisions where fundamental rights are involved. It held that the existing Keegan and O’Keeffe reasonableness test remained applicable, but said it must be applied in context, with due consideration to the rights affected. The applicant bears the burden of producing relevant and cogent evidence to show that a decision plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense.
In this case, the Court said the Minister’s decision did not explain how the FGM risk complaint had been assessed. It gave no indication whether the Minister accepted or rejected the woman’s account, what view he took of the risk in Nigeria, or why he concluded refoulement provisions were satisfied. The Court found substantial grounds to contend that the Minister had not addressed the complaint before deciding to deport her.
The order grants leave to apply for judicial review of the 12 July 2002 decision only insofar as it concerned the section 5 refoulement complaint. The High Court must still decide whether the evidence establishes that the decision was invalid or should be quashed. The Supreme Court expressed no view on the eventual outcome or on what decision the Minister should make.