Ahmed v DPP

EMNireland


Ahmed v DPP
Respondent/Defendant:The People (At the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2023] IECA 107
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:17 Apr 2023
Judge:Edwards J., McCarthy P., Kennedy I.
Category:Immigration, Trafficking
Keywords:Entry (Illegal), Trafficking in Human Beings
Country of Origin:Spain
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/961a61ad-6b8a-450f-85fd-c622d42016a2/2023_IECA_107.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: In February 2021, the appellant arrived at Dublin Airport on a flight from Lisbon. He was stopped by a customs officer when leaving the airport as the officer thought it was unusual that the appellant did not have much luggage with him, and only essential travel was permitted at that time of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Upon searching the … Read More

Principles:The facilitation of illegal entry to Ireland is a serious criminal offence and although coercion may not be involved, it still falls under section 2 of the Illegal Immigrations (Trafficking) Act 2000.
Go Back

Case C-481/13 – Qurbani v Staatsanwaltschaft Würzburg

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Staatsanwaltschaft Würzburg
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:C-481/13
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling
Judgment Date/s:17 Jul 2014
Judge:CJEU, Fourth Chamber: L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Safjan, J. Malenovský, A. Prechal and K. Jürimäe, Judges
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Entry (Illegal), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=155104&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=223629
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts:Article 31(1) of the Geneva Convention provides:- “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the … Read More

Principles:

In the context of references under Article 267 TFEU, the CJEU has jurisdiction to interpret international agreements concluded between Member States and third countries only where the European Union has assumed powers previously exercised by the Member States in the field to which an international convention not concluded by the European Union applied, and the provisions of which had the effect of binding the European Union. That is not the position with regard to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, because the Member States retain certain powers falling within the field of asylum / refugee status. Accordingly, the CJEU has no jurisdiction to interpret the Geneva Convention under the Article 267 TFEU procedure.

Go Back

Ejerenwa v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:2011 IESC 41, 28th October 2011, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:28 Oct 2011
Judge:Denham C.J.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Asylum Seeker, Border Crossing, Deportation, Detainee, Detention, Entry (Illegal), Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e9112918-ca1e-4951-b432-19ca4e38ba69/2011_IESC_41_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The High Court had found that the Applicant’s detention was in accordance with law. The Applicant appealed this to the Supreme Court. On the evening of 1 August 2011, Gardai stopped a bus which had crossed the … Read More

Principles:
  1. A detention order should contain clear information on its face as to the basis of its jurisdiction. In respect of s. 5(2)(a) of the Immigration Act 2003, in particular, it is necessary for a detention order to state on its face which provision or provisions of s. 5(1) of that Act apply.
  2. A warrant of detention is not required to make statements of law, and it is not necessary for a detention order to show on its face the time permitted for detention, where the period permitted for detention is a matter of general law and/or provided by statute.
Go Back