or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms refusal to grant judicial review of a 'review' by the Minister for Justice of a previous 'decision' to refuse permission to remain, where an applicant had been refused asylum, and subsequently refused international protection under new legislation, on the grounds that under the relevant legislation, the time limit to challenge a 'review' by way of judicial review was the same as that for challenging a 'decision', and the application in the instant case was out of time.
McKechnie J (nem diss): Judicial review - asylum and immigration - application for asylum in 2015 - refusal - change in legislation - International Protection Act 2015 - legislation activated from 31 December 2016 - application for international protection - refusal of permission to remain in the state - review of decision - s. 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015 - whether review was a 'decision' under s. 49(4)(b) for the purposes of the application of s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 - 2015 Act - main features - procedure - s. 5(1) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as substituted by s. 34 of the Employment Permits (Amendment) Act 2014, and as subsequently amended by s. 79 of the International Protection Act 2015 - challenge of validity of various measures - challenge must be by way of judicial review commenced within a period of 28 days - no appeal except with leave of High Court - whether a review of an earlier decision amounted to a decision - s. 5(1) of the Interpretation Act 2005 - deportation order - decision of High Court - submissions - statutory construction - whether review by Minister was a decision within the Act or a separate and distinct decision - if within the Act, out of time - meaning of the Oireachtas - ordinary and natural meaning of words - context of words - 'absurd' results - considerations by Minister in deciding on permission to remain - 'legal process theory'.
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.