Supporting Documents:
SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
X.X. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND I.G.)
Applicant AND
THE CHIEF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OFFICER AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY Respondents
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES
RESULT: The court grants leave to the applicant to appeal directly to this court from the High Court.
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED:
| COURT: High Court |
DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 14 January 2019 |
DATE OF ORDER: 28 January 2019 |
DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 7 March 2019 |
THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 28 March 2019 AND WAS IN TIME. |
REASONS GIVEN:
General considerations
1 The general principles applied by this court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 6 December 2017) and in a unanimous judgment of a full court delivered by O’Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 I.R. 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called leapfrog appeal directly from the High Court to this court can be permitted were addressed by the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115, (Unreported, Supreme Court, 20 November 2017). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent’s notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.
Decision
3 This is one of a series of proceedings heard together, and the same issue arises as was raised in N.Y. v. Chief International Protection Officer (Supreme Court Record No. 2019/57): that is, that the use of independent contractors and panel members by the International Protection Officers and officers of the Minister in the processing of applications for international protection was unlawful and impermissible pursuant to the International Protection Act 2015. For the reasons set out in the said determination, it is desirable that the issues involved in these proceedings be resolved definitively and speedily. Accordingly, leave was granted in the N.Y. case, and time was abridged for the exchange of written submissions. A date for case management was fixed as 29 July 2019 or such other date as may be determined.
4 Accordingly, the court grants leave to this applicant to appeal on the grounds set out in the application for leave, will abridge the time for the delivery of legal submissions to two weeks from the date hereof, and will allow the respondent a further two weeks to respond thereto. The court will direct a case management hearing on 29 July 2019 with a view to permitting the cases to be heard in early course in Michaelmas term and making any ancillary directions for the hearing of the appeals.
And it is hereby so ordered accordingly.
|