The applicant was the subject of a deportation order. He claimed to have been unaware of the deportation order until he was arrested and that he had been making arrangements to leave the State voluntarily. His legal representatives had furnished the Department of Justice with a letter stating that the applicant intended to leave the State. The applicant consulted with his then legal representatives while in detention, but then instructed new legal representatives and instituted judicial review pleadings challenging the deportation order on the basis that he had been denied access to legal advice and that the deportation order ought not to have been made when he was arranging to leave the State voluntarily.
The Court refused the relief sought and found that the applicant had not been denied legal advice and could have instituted proceedings at least from the time of his arrest at which time he must have known there was a deportation order in being against him. The Court further held that the applicant had not discharged the onus of proof that he had intended to leave the State voluntarily as the letter sent by his legal representatives in this regard did not satisfy the criteria of Section 3(4)(b) of the Immigration Act 1999 because it was not from the applicant’s solicitors of record, was ambiguous as to the date of intended departure and provided no confirming documentary evidence that he was leaving the State.