Kristian Woke aka Uche Ernest Nwoke v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 163
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:11 Mar 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4422cd4e-fca5-48e4-9b04-7732b46bcce9/2015_IEHC_163_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:
The applicant applied for asylum in Ireland and presented as a national of Sierra Leone. His application was unsuccessful as was a subsequent application for subsidiary protection, and a deportation order was made against him. He unsuccessfully sought to revoke the order and to re-enter the asylum system. Subsequently information came to light from the British authorities which indicated that he was known to them under a different name and was a national of Nigeria. The Minister for Justice notified the applicant of this, indicating an intention to amend the deportation order to reflect that new information, and legal representatives acting on his behalf sought to resist that. The Minister prepared an analysis which resulted in the affirmation of the deportation order and its amendment by the insertion of the name under which he was known to the British authorities.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to enjoin his deportation, contending that fair procedures were not followed in amending the order and that s. 3(1) and s. 3(6) of the Act of 1999 were not complied with in doing so.

The court refused the injunction sought.

Reasoning:
It held that amendment of a deportation order would accord with fair procedures where the proposal to amend was fully and carefully explained to an applicant and where he had every opportunity to reply to such a proposal.

There was no requirement to revisit all of the issues which needed to be considered following the issuing of a proposal to make a deportation order. If the effect of the amendment would be to consider the removal of a person to a territory not originally considered when making the original deportation order, it was incumbent upon the Minister to revisit that issue. The court was satisfied that that had been done in the instant case. There was no lack of fair procedures. There was therefore no arguable case that there was illegality in the amendment of the order and the injunction application could not succeed.

Decision:
The court therefore refused the interlocutory injunction.

Principles:

Amendment of a deportation order by the Minister for Justice will accord with fair procedures where the proposal to amend is fully and carefully explained to an applicant and where he or she has an opportunity to reply to such a proposal. There is no requirement to revisit all of the issues which need to be considered following the issuing of a proposal to make a deportation order. If the effect of the amendment will be to consider the removal of a person to a territory not originally considered when making the original deportation order, it is incumbent upon the Minister to revisit that issue.

Go Back

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *