The High Court has refused G.T.’s application for an injunction to prevent his deportation to Georgia while his judicial review proceedings continue. The court dealt only with the request for interim relief; it adjourned his application for leave to seek judicial review for a later hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 28 March 2025, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger said the balance of convenience and the least risk of injustice favoured allowing the existing deportation order to take effect. She applied the Supreme Court’s principles in *Okunade v Minister for Justice* and adopted the assessment made by Ms Justice Niamh Phelan in a related case involving the same applicant.
G.T. argued that he feared persecution or serious harm if returned to Georgia, and that deportation could prevent him from pursuing remedies if his judicial review succeeded. In an affidavit, he referred to family-related fears, political developments and violence, and said he had no support there apart from his elderly grandfather. The judgment records those as his claims; it did not make a finding that he would face persecution or serious harm.
Bolger J said the country information relied on had already been considered by Phelan J, who found it did not meet the evidential threshold for an injunction based on G.T.’s individual circumstances. Bolger J agreed. The judgment also noted that Georgia had been categorised by the State as a safe country for his situation, while distinguishing that assessment from possible risks to other groups, including LGBTQ people.
The judge rejected the argument that judicial review of the International Protection Office and International Protection Appeals Tribunal decisions would suspend deportation. She said any suspensive effect ended with the first-instance IPO decision and that the court could not extend it through the judicial review process under the legislation or the Procedures Directive.
The underlying challenge concerns the IPO’s February 2025 refusal to consent to a subsequent international protection application and IPAT’s refusal of G.T.’s appeal. His claims include that relevant documents were not provided and that concerns about earlier representation were not properly addressed. The court said those issues remain for the application for leave and did not decide them in this injunction judgment.
The judge noted the respondents’ submission that, if G.T. later succeeded in judicial review and a subsequent application, he could seek revocation of the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. She stressed that these were observations about possible future steps, not a restriction on decisions in any future process.
The court refused the injunction. It listed the matter for 2 May 2025 to address costs, other matters and the application for leave.