A Supreme Court decision in the case of a Romanian man, who was deported yesterday, has upheld a High Court judgment clarifying a number of key procedural aspects of the administration of the 1999 Immigration Act.
The three-judge court unanimously upheld the High Court judgment of Mr Justice Finnegan, delivered on August 18th, 2000, which rejected all grounds of the man's challenge to his deportation and clarified procedures under the 1999 Act.
The Romanian, Mr Dimitru Popa, arrived here in 1997, his application for asylum was refused, his appeal against that refusal was dismissed and an order for his deportation was made in April 2000. The order was put into effect in August 2000 but the man was brought back from Amsterdam due to what was described in the High Court as a "misapprehnsion" of a court order.
Delivering the court's judgment, the Chief Justice said the approach of the High Court judge towards the case was correct. He had fully heard the challenge and, in a careful written judgment, had dealt with all of the issues.
While there was dispute between the sides about some matters, the undisputed facts were that the entire procedure under the relevant legislation had been gone through insofar as the determination of the applicant's status was concerned, Mr Justice Keane said. The determination of the High Court was on the basis of those uncontested facts.
He found the State's obligation was to notify the applicant of the making of the deportation order. That was done and the notice was sent to an address where the man was no longer residing.
A person in the position of the applicant had to notify the authorities of any change of address, the Chief Justice said. If he failed to do so, in legal terms, a failure to give him notice of the intention to make a deportation order was not the legal responsibility of the Minister but was entirely the applicant's responsibility because he had failed to comply with the relevant regulations.
Mr Justice Murphy agreed the appeal should be dismissed but said he had some reservations with regard to which State a deporting State might return a refugee.
Mr Justice Hardiman said he agreed with the decision of the Chief Justice and of Mr Justice Murphy.