A 14-day limit on the right of immigrants to challenge a deportation order in judicial review proceedings is an "unquestionable interference" with the constitutional right of access to the courts which appears to be justified only by a legislative intention "to get immigrants out of the country as quickly as possible", the Supreme Court was told yesterday.
In proposing the measure in the new Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999, Mr Michael Collins SC said the Minister for Justice gave the game away when he told the Dail his reasons for introducing the 14-day limit - when Irish citizens have six months to take judicial review proceedings.
"I do not believe there is anything to be gained from allowing a situation to develop where people can use judicial review proceedings to prolong the process when they do not have any case," the Minister had said.
It is the reference to "when they do not have any case" that "gives the game away", Mr Collins said. This indicated Mr O'Donoghue supposed his deportation orders would be perfect and that, if he decided to deport, there was no case against it.
Mr Collins, with Mr Eamonn Leahy SC, was opening the case against the constitutionality of two provisions of the Bill. Sections 5 and 10 of the Bill were referred by the President, Mrs McAleese, to the Supreme Court in order to determine whether they are constitutional or not.
Section 5 sets a 14-day limit on the entitlement of an asylum-seeker to seek judicial review of a deportation order.
Section 10 relates to the extent of the powers of arrest and detention available to the Garda following the serving of a deportation order.
Dealing with Section 5, Mr Collins said the Attorney General was advancing three reasons for the 14-day time limit: (1) asylum-seekers might become too enmeshed in Irish society if the process was longer; (2) additional time to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge deportation orders would impose undue pressure on the system and (3) the desirability of a mechanism to have orders speedily determined.
Mr Collins argued none of these reasons supported the introduction of the measure. The 14-day limit unquestionably interfered with the constitutional right of access to the court.
Mr Dermot Gleeson SC with Mr Gerard Hogan SC for the Attorney General, argued that, in the context of immigration law, there was a very basic distinction between the positions of citizens and aliens. Citizens had an unqualified right to enter and remain in the State, while aliens did not.
Deportation only came at the end of a process which had run a full course involving four and possibly five decision makers and which had a 14-day time span attached to the very last furlong of a very long process. The fastest any applicant for refugee status had gone through the system was 7 1/2 months and the longest was 2 1/2 years.
The hearing continues today.