The High Court refused Moeen Akram’s challenge to the refusal of permission to land in Ireland, the search of his phone and his detention at Cloverhill Prison. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 19 November 2018, rejected all the reliefs he sought, including an order quashing the refusal, declarations that his detention and the phone search were unlawful, and damages.
Akram, a Pakistani national, arrived at Dublin Airport on 21 October 2017 with a travel visa. After interviewing him and reviewing text messages on his phone, an immigration officer concluded there was reason to believe he intended to enter Ireland for a purpose other than the one he stated. Akram maintained that he had come to visit his brother. The officer refused him permission to land under section 4(3)(k) of the Immigration Act 2004. Akram was held at Cloverhill Prison until 25 October, when he was removed from Ireland.
Akram argued that taking and examining his phone was unlawful, that the refusal notice did not give adequate reasons, and that the decision relied on irrelevant or incomplete considerations. He also complained that his detention conditions breached Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court held that section 7 of the 2004 Act authorised the search. It found that the power to search a non-national and examine documents included removing a phone and reading data stored on it. The judgment said the Act’s definition of “documents” expressly included information in non-legible form that could be converted into legible form. A separate argument about whether the law permitted retention of documents was not considered: it had not been raised in the statement of grounds or written submissions.
On reasons for the refusal, the court found the signed standard-form notice adequate. It said the notice and the process allowed Akram to understand the decision and challenge it, while enabling judicial review. The court also found no irrelevant consideration had been taken into account and held that the officer acted reasonably. It said the record and contemporaneous computer log supported the decision.
The court found no evidence that Akram’s conditions at Cloverhill breached Article 5(1); the issue had not been pressed at the hearing. It therefore refused all reliefs sought. The judgment did not grant damages or make a declaration that the detention was unlawful.