UN refugee group clear to intervene

The United Nations refugee body in Ireland has been given permission by the Supreme Court to intervene in a pending appeal by…

The United Nations refugee body in Ireland has been given permission by the Supreme Court to intervene in a pending appeal by a failed asylum-seeker.

In an unprecedented move, the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees will offer "impartial expert assistance" to the court regarding an important legal issue.

The UNHCR is the universal supervisory body for the protection of refugees under the 1951 Geneva refugee convention, an international law upon which Irish refugee legislation is based.

The UN body has gradually established the right to intervene and make submissions to tribunals or courts about the interpretation of the convention and has in the past intervened before the Supreme Courts of the United States and Canada. A special application had to be made here and this will be the first time it will exercise this right in Ireland.

READ MORE

The UNHCR made the amicus curiae (friend of the court) application last week. The Supreme Court accepted it in a short hearing yesterday, in which the UN body was represented by Mr Bill Shipsey SC and Mr Paddy Dillon Malone, instructed by Andrew O'Rorke of Hayes solicitors.

The application relates to an appeal due to be heard by the court in the coming months involving an unsuccessful asylum-seeker from Nigeria.

The court will examine whether refugee authorities should consider the possibility that asylum applicants could have sought safety somewhere within their countries of origin before fleeing them to seek refugee status in Ireland.

To be recognised as refugees, asylum-seekers must show that owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, they have left their countries of origin and are unable or unwilling due to fear to return.

At the core of the "internal flight" option is the question of whether someone fearing persecution may have been reasonably able to find safety within the borders of his or her own country rather than leaving it.

The outcome of the Supreme Court case could have implications in particular for asylum applicants fleeing ethnic or religious strife confined to certain regions of their native countries.

A High Court judge, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan, late last year referred "a point of law of exceptional public importance" on the issue to the Supreme Court. The question arose from a judicial review case taken against the Minister for Justice by Mr Hippolitus Iwuala.

In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court last week, the UNHCR's representative in Ireland said it had not to date sought to intervene before any court in this jurisdiction by way of amicus curiae. The affidavit said the proceedings raised a question relating to the correct interpretation and application of the criteria governing when internal flight may properly be regarded as a safe alternative for an asylum-seeker.