Hundreds of legal challenges by asylum-seekers have been temporarily suspended pending a Supreme Court decision on the interpretation of immigration legislation.
At the core of the case is the nature of the reasons that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is obliged to give when proposing to issue deportation orders.
The five-judge court yesterday reserved judgment after a three-day hearing of appeals by three asylum-seekers which raise issues common to hundreds of cases. Those cases are on hold pending a ruling.
The three appellants - one represented by Mr Bill Shipsey SC and two by Mr Feichin McDonagh SC - sought asylum and refugee status but had their applications refused. Their appeals were also rejected.
They applied for leave to stay on humanitarian grounds and were refused and given notice that the Minister intended to make deportation orders.
The three sought leave to judicially review the Minister's decision, but leave was refused by Mr Justice Smyth, who held that they had not established substantial grounds. The three appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals raise issues on the interpretation of Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999, and Section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act, 2000. Section 3 of the 1999 Act provides that deportation orders may be made after applications for asylum have been refused. The Minister should notify the subject of the proposed order and the reasons for it. The applicant may then make representations to the Minister. The Minister has to notify the person in writing of his decision and the reasons for it.
Section 5 of the 2000 Act provides that any application for leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order shall not be granted unless the High Court is satisfied there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision should be quashed.
The appellants contend that the judge was wrong in holding that substantial grounds meant the case was strong and likely to succeed. The correct meaning, they claimed, was "reasonable", "arguable" and "weighty".
They complained that the Minister had failed to set out proper reasons for his decision to make deportation orders. They said they had received similar "formula" letters which contained no "proper, intelligible or adequate" reasons.
Mr George Birmingham SC and Mr Frank Callanan SC, for the Minister, argued that the High Court judge had refused leave in line with established legal authorities. They said the judge was entitled to take into account that two of the applicants had had their asylum applications declared "manifestly unfounded". The reasons given by the Minister were sufficient, it was submitted.
