A former asylum seeker has failed to show that her rights were breached by a decision to transfer her from a Dublin reception centre to accommodation in the midlands.
The Syrian national sought damages and wanted the court to declare that the Minister for Integration’s decision to transfer her was a breach of her private and/or health rights under the Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and the European Convention on Human Rights Act of 2003.
The Minister argued the case was moot as the woman had been granted refugee status so the State no longer had a legal obligation to provide her with basic accommodation, food and hygiene facilities.
She remains living in a State-provided mobile home with her son by the grace of the Minister and not because she is so entitled, the respondents submitted.
The woman, who cannot be identified due to her immigration status, contended that, as she was seeking damages, the proceedings still contained an issue to be determined.
In a recently published ruling, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said she believed the proceedings are moot. However, in case she is wrong about this, she proceeded to determine the substantive matters.
The judge said the woman arrived in this State with her son in May 2021 and was brought to the National Reception Centre in Balseskin, north Dublin, where new arrivals are processed.
The woman was subject to a vulnerability assessment, that determined she did not require special accommodation as a doctor found her medical issues could be dealt with at regional hospital level.
She was told in February 2022 that she and her son would be transferred to the midlands.
The Irish Refugee Council then emailed the International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS) indicating the woman suffered from memory loss and mobility issues and regularly attends medical appointments in Beaumont Hospital in Dublin. A request was made for the woman and her son be transferred to Dublin city accommodation to facilitate access to Beaumont, the judge said.
The IPAS emailed the woman in March stating that there was no availability in the Dublin area and, as Balseskin is a reception centre and there was an increased amount of protection applicants, residents could not remain there long term.
After being moved in March, the woman and her son complained that she could not step into the shower and had difficulty using the toilet in the small bathroom due to her vulnerability and mobility issues, Ms Justice Hyland said.
The next month the woman was declared a refugee and, following a second vulnerability assessment, she was considered to be “vulnerable high”, said the judge.
It was recommended that she needed accessible accommodation with her son in the city where she could easily access geriatric services. The decision noted that the IPAS does not transfer residents who have refugee status but it would recommend that on humanitarian grounds the woman should be transferred.
Ms Justice Hyland said the woman’s claim can only be advanced for the six-week period she was in the new accommodation before being granted refugee status.
The judge pointed to a “glaring absence” of medical evidence put forward by the woman’s legal team, who, she said, relied heavily on the second vulnerability assessment.
There did not seem to be any factual or legal basis for why the woman should not have been transferred to the midlands when she was.
Although the conditions are “undoubtedly” less than ideal for her, they “fall very far short” of the situations identified by her counsel in court cases where a breach of fundamental rights has been found.
She failed to make out any case that the transfer decision breached her rights, the judge added.
