or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses judicial review of decision refusing an application for subsidiary protection of person who was subject of a purported Eurodac fingerprint match but copies of the fingerprint data were not possible to obtain, on the grounds that no objective bias was evident in circumstances where the Chief International Protections Officer undertook not to have regard to the Eurodac material in reaching a decision; the fingerprint material was not raised at interview; and there was no analysis of/finding regarding same in the impugned decision.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – challenge to the decision refusing an application for subsidiary protection – applied for refugee status - found to be the subject of a purported Eurodac fingerprint match with prints taken in France in 2007 – disputed the match – refused refugee status – applied for subsidiary protection – requested and was refused disclosure of Eurodac results – judicial review failed on grounds of prematurity – concerns regarding the process – undertakings not to refer to Eurodac results - refused subsidiary protection – adverse credibility grounds – judicial review proceedings issued – objective bias - fingerprint material was not raised at interview - no analysis of/finding regarding same in the impugned decision – no objective bias – legitimate expectation – could not have properly had a legitimate expectation that there would also be a purge of all material referring to the Eurodac material – refusal and/or failure to disclose material - no public duty that CIPO is so obliged to perform but has wrongfully refused to do – no delay – judicial review refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.