BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> N. -v- MJELR & Anor [2009] IEHC 56 (05 February 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2009/H56.html Cite as: [2009] IEHC 56 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: N. -v- MJELR & Anor Composition of Court: Judgment by: McGovern J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation Number: [2009] IEHC 56 THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW 2007 483 JR IN THE MATTER OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REFUGEE ACT 1996 (AS AMENDED) BETWEEN O. G. N. APPLICANT AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM AND DAVID ANDREWS SITTING AS THE REFUGEE APPEALS TRIBUNAL RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian McGovern delivered the 5th day of February, 2009 1. This is an application for leave to apply, by way of judicial review, for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the second named respondent dated 19th April, 2007, affirming a recommendation of the Refugee Applications Commissioner dated 27th January, 2007, that the applicant should not be declared a refugee. The applicant also seeks consequential relief against the first named respondent. 2. The applicant has to establish substantial grounds before the court can grant leave. 3. Having considered the papers in this matter, and the submissions made by counsel, I have come to the view that the applicant has established substantial grounds in his application for leave to apply for judicial review on one point, namely, the failure of the second named respondent to have regard to the correct UNHCR guidelines on international protection. 4. In his decision, the second named respondent states that he took note of the UNHCR position paper on “relocating internally as a reasonable alternative to seeking asylum - (the so-called ‘internal flight’ or ‘relocation principle’)” dated February, 1999. 5. It appears that this position paper has been superseded by the UNHCR guidelines on international protection dated 23rd July, 2003, ref. HCR/GIP/03/03/04. Those guidelines were intended to provide interpretative legal guidance for governments, legal practitioners, decision-makers and the judiciary as well as UNHCR staff carrying out refugee status determination in the field. 6. Since the Tribunal Member’s decision on the refugee status of the applicant appears to have been bound up with the possibility of internal relocation, it seems to me that the applicant has met the test required in order to be granted leave, namely, he has shown substantial grounds that he has an arguable case. 7. I make no judgment on the effect (if any) of this mistake on the decision of the second named respondent as this will be a matter for the court to determine on the full judicial hearing.
|
