The applicant, a failed asylum seeker from Romania, was issued with a deportation order. She requested a revocation of the order and furnished the Minister with a psychiatric report stating that she had suicidal ideations. The Minister refused to revoke the order, and the applicant sought to quash the deportation order on the basis that her deportation would be in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The High Court granted the applicant leave to seek judicial review but ultimately refused the relief sought, finding that the applicant failed to prove that there was a real and substantial risk that she would kill herself; that the medical reports furnished fell short of what was necessary in terms of analysis of the applicant’s condition and that the applicant had not established that the revoking of the deportation order would avert her suicide.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court and sought an injunction restraining the applicant’s deportation pending the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court declared that Section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 is not governed by Section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 and therefore, that the applicant did not require a certificate from a High Court judge in order to institute an appeal before the Supreme Court on this point. The Supreme Court refused the injunction, however, holding that Court had an inherent power to grant interlocutory orders pending the hearing of an appeal where such order is necessary to protect the rights of the parties but that in the instant case no matter had been made out by the applicant to stay the implementation of the validly made deportation order.