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 £5, 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!

1. The Applicant is a single female Nigerian national who was born on 28th of July, 1970. She arrived in Ireland on 16th June, 2000 having travelled from Lagos via Milan to Dublin. She has one hundred percent fluency in English, and has an education to O Level Certificate and a Vocational qualification by means of a certificate and Diploma in fashion. Having sought asylum on arriving in Ireland (the journey having been organised and overseen by an agent) she completed a questionnaire form on 18th June, 2000. Her application for refugee status was unsuccessful and she was so notified by letter dated 22nd September, 2000. Against this decision she appealed, but the Appeal was not successful and the Applicant was notified of the Appeal decision by letter dated 27th October, 2000.

2. The Legal Aid Board, under the style or title of the Refugee Legal Service by letter dated 20th November, 2000 made application for ‘leave to remain on humanitarian grounds’ pursuant to Section 3 of the Illegal Immigrants Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1999) on behalf of the Applicant. The application was supplemented by a further letter of 11th December, 2000 (with enclosure). This application was unsuccessful and the Respondent signed a Deportation Order on 10th January, 2001 affecting the Applicant, the curial section of the Order provides as follows:-

3. That Order with a letter dated 12th January, 2001 was addressed to the Applicant at Kincora House, Seatown Place, Dundalk, County Louth and a copy thereof given to the Applicant’s then legal advisor, the Refugee Legal Service, a copy was also sent to the Garda National Immigration Bureau. The letter obligated the Applicant to present herself at the Garda Station in Dundalk on Wednesday the 17th of January at 2.30 p.m. to make arrangements for her deportation, the deportation to be effected not later than Wednesday 7th February, 2001.

4. The Applicant avers that she was not served or given the letter of 12th January 2001 because it was sent to her “former address”. At a day and date unspecified in the documents the Applicant avers that she “had been moved by the Asylum Support Services” to a non-specified address in Galway. The Repatriation Unit of the Respondent’s Department appeared to have identified this as Southern Hills Guest House, Galway, in or about 26th February, 2001. The averment of the Applicant is that the Asylum Support Service was a body run under the auspices and control of the Respondent. No information is given as to whether this move from Dundalk to Galway was requested by the Applicant or whether it was voluntary or if anyone was taking responsibility for noting the relevant authorities of the Applicant’s change of address, that was prima facie, the duty of the Applicant herself.

5. It is clear that the Applicant did not present herself to the Garda at Dundalk on 17th January, 2001 or even the 7th of February, 2001 for the perfectly understandable reason that she avers that she had not been served or given the letter of 12th January, 2001

6. In the events the Applicant was arrested by a member of An Garda Siochana on the 16th February, 2001 who signed a Detention Order made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Immigration Act, 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 1999 (S.I. No. 319 of 1999) made pursuant to Section 7 of the Act of 1999. The Applicant was detained in Mountjoy Women's Prison a prescribed place for the purpose of Section 5(1) of the Act of 1999 (as amended by substitution by Section 10(b) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking Act, 2000 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000). The arrest and detention were clearly effected in the belief that the Applicant was a person who had contravened a provision of a Deportation Order or a requirement of a notice under Section 3(b)(ii) and so was guilty of an offence (under Section 3(10) of the Act of 1999.)

7. The Applicant changed her legal advisors and after a period of ten days detention the Applicant was agreed to be released. The arrangements are referred to in a

8. I reject the contention in paragraph 8 of the Applicant’s affidavit which grounded a further submission of Counsel that the Respondent acknowledged at any time that the Applicant was lawfully within the State until 26th March, 2001 (the latest date by which deportation was to be effected under the Letter of Notice of the Deportation Order dated 26th March, 2001). The decision of the Supreme Court in P.L. & B v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (unreported 30/7/2001) makes it quite clear that a person such as the Applicant is a person whose application for Asylum has been unsuccessful and whose application for refugee status has been refused but who is permitted to remain in the State until his/her application under Section 3 of the 1999 Act for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds has been determined. I am satisfied and find as a fact and as a matter of law that there was no acknowledgement by the Respondent that the Applicant was lawfully in the State at the time or for the period contended for, or that the Deportation Order of 10th January, 2001 was expressly or impliedly revoked or became spent or ineffective.

9. I am satisfied and find as a fact that:-

10. The application for leave I treat as the application for Judicial Review, the case for the Applicant having been put in full. The application is refused and stands dismissed.

11. On hearing Counsel on the matter of costs the Order for costs will be that the Respondent shall have his costs to be taxed in default of agreement, less the sum of £1,000 in respect of the period of 10 days when the Applicant was detained by mistake (that is the sum which if the Applicant was successful in her application and if she had made a claim in damages I would have assessed for the period of detention, if a legal liability had been established).