Leave to appeal refused as the proposed point of exceptional public importance does not arise from the decision.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant's proposed point of exceptional public importance did not arise from the underlying decision. The court found that the two applications involved different facts and evidence, meaning the International Protection Appeals Tribunal did not actually depart from its earlier ruling. Consequently, the court could not certify the point for appeal as it required reviewing findings that were not contested or inconsistent.
Legislator headnote
AI generateds.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000; A proposed point of exceptional public importance must arise from the decision under review, and the court cannot certify a point that requires it to review its own findings of fact or assume inconsistencies where none exist.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedFull text
[2019] IEHC 223
THE HIGH COURT
2018 No. 516 JR
Between:
C
Applicant
– and –
THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
Respondents
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 3rd April, 2019.
1. Pursuant to s.5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as amended, Mr C seeks leave to appeal the decision in C v. IPAT
[2018] IEHC 755 (the ‘Decision’). The decision on this application is informed by Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC
250, as supplemented in the immigration field by S.A. v. MJE [2016] IEHC 646. The court reiterates, mutatis mutandis, its
observations in Connolly v. An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 624, para.14; however, neither side has objected to this Court deciding this
application.
2. Mr C proposes the following purported point of exceptional public importance (the ‘Proposed Point’):
“Whether the obligation on the IPAT to provide reasons why an earlier decision is apparently being departed from, in
circumstances where the two decisions are ex facie inconsistent, is engaged having regard to ‘all’ of the evidence in the
respective applications or just having regard to the evidence pertaining to the analogous material element of the
respective applications?”
3. Unfortunately the Proposed Point does not arise from the Decision, para.2 of which states that “The two applications did not
feature ‘the same facts’…‘all but identical facts’…or ‘similar facts’….They are different applications, yielding different decisions on
different evidence.” Hence the “ex facie inconsistent” decisions of the IPAT have been found not to be inconsistent and there has
not been the suggested “departure” by the IPAT from its earlier decision. In posing the Proposed Point, Mr C is asking this Court to
review its own findings and/or to proceed on the basis that it did not make the findings it did.
4. The Proposed Point cannot be certified and leave to appeal must respectfully be refused.