BI -v- Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 761 (08 November 2016)

BI -v- Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 761 (08 November 2016)

Preparatory and approval work by officials prior to final determination does not constitute the exercise of statutory power under the Carltona principles. The sequence of decisions did not breach Regulation 4(5) or demonstrate bias. Cooke J.'s analysis is compelling and not clearly erroneous.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 761
Parties
Applicant: B. I.; Respondent: Minister for Justice & Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Telescoped Hearing for Leave and Substantive Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; substantive relief refused.
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Deportation Orders, Fair Procedures, Bias, Carltona Principles
Immigration Law Administrative Law Subsidiary Protection Deportation Orders Fair Procedures Bias Carltona Principles

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. I.

Applicant

Minister for Justice & Law Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Telescoped Hearing for Leave and Substantive Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision refusing subsidiary protection and making a deportation order was tainted by bias or breach of fair procedures
  2. 2 Whether the sequence of decision-making breached Regulation 4(5) of the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations, 2006
  3. 3 Whether preparatory work by officials constitutes a statutory decision under the Carltona principles

Ratio Decidendi

Preparatory and approval work by officials prior to final determination does not constitute the exercise of statutory power under the Carltona principles. The sequence of decisions did not breach Regulation 4(5) or demonstrate bias. Cooke J.'s analysis is compelling and not clearly erroneous.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review granted; substantive relief refused.

Orders

  • Order extending time for leave to bring judicial review.
  • Order granting leave to apply for judicial review.