Y.Y. -v- Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IESC 61 (27 July 2017)

Y.Y. -v- Minister for Justice and Equality [2017] IESC 61 (27 July 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the Minister was not required to notify the applicant of every piece of country of origin material relied upon before making a deportation order, provided the applicant had a fair opportunity to make submissions and respond to the general basis of the decision. The Court found that the Minister's decisions were sufficiently reasoned and lawful, and that the evidence did not establish that deportation would expose the applicant to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Minister was entitled to reach an independent conclusion, notwithstanding findings by other authorities, and the applicant's exclusion from protection due to serious criminality...

Citation
[2017] IESC 61
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Y. Y.; Respondent/respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Challenge to Deportation and Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Non Refoulement, Article 3 ECHR, Subsidiary Protection, Procedural Fairness, Risk of Torture or Inhuman Treatment
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Deportation Non Refoulement Article 3 ECHR Subsidiary Protection Procedural Fairness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y. Y.

Applicant/appellant

Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Dismissal of Challenge to Deportation and Refusal to Revoke Deportation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister for Justice and Equality was required to notify the applicant of country of origin material relied upon and invite submissions before making a deportation order under s.3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999;
  2. 2 Whether the reasons provided by the Minister for making and refusing to revoke the deportation order provided a sufficient lawful basis, particularly in light of findings by other authorities that there was a real risk of Article 3 ECHR breach;
  3. 3 Whether the applicant faced a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if deported to Algeria, contrary to Article 3 ECHR.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Minister was not required to notify the applicant of every piece of country of origin material relied upon before making a deportation order, provided the applicant had a fair opportunity to make submissions and respond to the general basis of the decision. The Court found that the Minister's decisions were sufficiently reasoned and lawful, and that the evidence did not establish that deportation would expose the applicant to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Minister was entitled to reach an independent conclusion, notwithstanding findings by other authorities, and the applicant's exclusion from protection due to serious criminality...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Deportation order against the applicant stands
  • No order for revocation of deportation