N -v- Minister for Justice & Ors [2012] IEHC 499 (28 November 2012)

N -v- Minister for Justice & Ors [2012] IEHC 499 (28 November 2012)

The Minister did not err in law in his approach to 'serious harm' as the applicant's credibility had been rejected and there was no accepted evidence of past serious harm; procedural and appeal-related grounds have been consistently rejected; the application fails on all grounds.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 499
Parties
Applicant: N. N. [Cameroon]; Respondents: The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application to Quash Subsidiary Protection Refusal
Outcome
Application refused; reliefs sought denied.
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Refugee Status, Interpretation of EU Directives, Right to Be Heard, Effective Remedy, State Protection, Serious Harm Definition
Immigration Law EU Law Human Rights Law Subsidiary Protection Refugee Status Interpretation of EU Directives Right to Be Heard Effective Remedy +2 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. N. [Cameroon]

Applicant

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application to Quash Subsidiary Protection Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister erred in law in defining 'serious harm' for subsidiary protection
  2. 2 Whether procedural rights under EU and domestic law were breached in the subsidiary protection process
  3. 3 Whether the absence of an appeal mechanism or effective remedy for subsidiary protection decisions breaches constitutional or EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister did not err in law in his approach to 'serious harm' as the applicant's credibility had been rejected and there was no accepted evidence of past serious harm; procedural and appeal-related grounds have been consistently rejected; the application fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Application refused; reliefs sought denied.

Orders

  • Refusal of order of certiorari quashing the subsidiary protection refusal
  • No adjournment pending further case law