The High Court refused an applicant permission to appeal a judgment in his judicial review case, rejected his request to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union and discharged all stays and injunctions then in place.
In written reasons delivered on 29 July 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said he had made those orders on 4 July, after dismissing the substantive proceedings. The two judicial reviews were identified in the judgment as [2015 No. 647 J.R.] and [2015 No. 727 J.R.]. The applicant and respondent were anonymised as X.X. and the Minister for Justice and Equality.
The applicant sought leave to appeal on five proposed questions, including the interpretation of a statutory time limit, the treatment of repeat asylum applications, how a deportation decision must show that the correct test was applied, and the evidence needed to establish a risk of ill-treatment on return. The judge found the questions did not meet the statutory threshold. Among his reasons, he said several points had not been raised or pleaded at the original hearing, some would not have changed the outcome, and others did not raise a matter of exceptional public importance.
On the proposed EU reference, the judge said the question had not been raised during the substantive hearing and did not arise from his decision. He also clarified that he had not held that the procedures directive imposed an absolute requirement for new elements before a person could make a second asylum application. He refused the reference.
The judge discharged the existing stays and injunctions with effect from 4 July and refused a further stay. He said the Court of Appeal stay had been interlocutory and would otherwise have ended when the substantive proceedings were determined. The court’s order said the question of costs was adjourned until written reasons were delivered.
The judgment records the judge’s prior decision that the applicant’s substantive case had been dismissed. This later ruling addressed the post-judgment applications and the interim relief; it did not itself make a new deportation order. It removed the court orders that had delayed implementation of the Minister’s deportation decision.