Pamela Izevbekhai - Should She Be Deported?

rkeane

EF wrote: »

I think the courts have shown that they are more than willing to uphold the rights of people in the State e.g. serious criminals who have had their sentences reduced due to the weight which the court attaches to their constitutional rights. While Pamela and her children would not have constitutional rights in the State, I think it is worthwhile noting that the courts will overturn a ruling or a sentence where a persons rights may be violated. Her case has been fully considered under the European Convention on Human Rights
Pamela's case is now being prioritised in the ECHR so a ruling should be made on the admisssbility of her case by the summer!

The sooner the better.

AlekSmart

Not so fast.....Hmmmmm I suspect THIS is one aspect of the UK`s Judicial Process our Liberal Elite will be ever so keen for us to incorporate into the Irish Statute Book !

Ruling frees asylum seekers to work

* Jamie Doward and Gaby Hinsliff
* The Observer, Sunday 14 December 2008
* Article history

A landmark legal ruling has paved the way for thousands of asylum seekers in the UK to be allowed to work. The High Court has ruled that current laws preventing an Eritrean asylum seeker from taking a job are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Last night legal experts said the test case would have major ramifications for others seeking asylum.

The Eritrean man, called Tekle, who cannot be returned to his home country because it is considered too dangerous, has been in the UK for seven years while his case is considered. Thousands of asylum seekers from other countries also considered too dangerous to return to - including Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Zimbabwe - are in a similar position.

The ruling has no bearing on the 300,000-plus asylum seekers whose applications are being fast-tracked because they do not come from countries considered no-go areas. But Caroline Slocock, chief executive of the Refugee Legal Centre, said the ruling would affect a significant category who found themselves destitute and in limbo. 'We expect it to be in the thousands,' she said.

Mr Justice Blake ruled that a blanket ban was 'unlawfully over-broad and unjustifiably detrimental to claimants who have had to wait as long as this claimant has'. He said the Home Office's policy breached article 8 of the convention, which guarantees the 'right to respect for private and family life'.

The ruling comes as the former Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, prepares to publish a report tomorrow suggesting that failed asylum seekers should be given the right to work here if they cannot return home.

Now,I`m theorizing here but perhaps Pamela Izevbekhai may well have a completely new career path opened up before her.......RTE`s "Asylum Affairs Correspondent" anyone ???

Now IMO,This WILL put the Floodgate theory to the test not to mention introduce an entirely different dynamic into the Mass Unemployment scenario which some commentators are now advancing as a possibility in the medium term.

I do hope that the Garda Public Order budget is in robust good health !!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

However I am also beginning to formulate an opinion that Ms Izevbekhai has long ceased to be the driving force behind these extended proceedings.
I now believe that her case has been taken over by a grouping of individuals who have several axes to grind with the State as an entity in itself.

Another new theory. We have had the illegal immigrant therory now we have the conspiracy to destroy the state theory. All unsubstantiated conjecture ofcourse.
Care to enlighten us with the names of these organisations?

I believe that these individuals and bodies actually represent more of a threat to Pamela Izevbekhai`s wellbeing than the percieved threats supposedly awaiting her and her family back in Nigeria.

Can you elborate with details please so we can warn her if needs be?

There is also a niggling doubt in my mind concerning the actual veracity of her claims relating to her family situation in Nigeria.

The extent of her obfuscation at the earliest stages of her case against Ireland gives me cause to question the plausibility of her story to date.

More detail please. Eay to say that, not so easy to show its truth.

It would appear that the details which she provided at the outset have thus far NOT been verified save for supportive accounts from her supporters whose actual knowledge of Ms Izevbekhai`s circumstances in Nigeria are based totally on what she herself has told them

Thats simply not true. The doctor who treated her family and knows her has made statements to the Irish media (before he was threatened by Nigerian Police.)

I think also it must be worthwhile recording my personal gratitude to those members of the Garda National Immigration Bureau and the various Government Departments who have had a thankless task in attempting to enforce the laws of the land in the face of often personalized attempts to portray them as some form of devils incarnate

I dont hink there has been any personalised attacks against them. The personalized attackes generally come from the deport her side to be fair. The imigration official who leaked spurious information to the Irish Independent about how she entered the country got a bit of stick but nothing personal.

Native Hawk

Yes

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This point the poster made was in relation to the floodgates opening if we allow asylum for an FGM. The UKs experience shows this is a not true. 1 granted refugee status in 3 years.

The Nigerian state is not able to reasonably protect a child from forcible kidnap. Therefore any precedent which implies it can may not produce a just outcome.

I have comprehensively shown how the Nigerian Courts and Police cant protect a child in this situation. If you have any evidence to show they can then lets hear it.

Otherwise we can assume that the RAT got it wrong and the courts back the RATs decision like they always do.

ParkRunner

Herself or her legal representatives couldn't convince any immigration body or independent court that she can't live in the vast country that is Nigeria without suffering persecution. If she can convince the European Court so be it and I will accept their decision. If the European Court decide against her will they be wrong also?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the bolt

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the flip side, I know a public health nurse who was given a 42" plasma screen and a new BMW by a Nigerian man and his family.

You just never know, do you?

tell us more,why?has this nigerian any more bmw's to give away?

T runner

Some people have declared themselves satisfied with the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in this case. Not all people share this view.

The following is the findings of a questionnaire answered by over 70 lawyers and barristers involved in the Irish Asylum process.

Remember the RAT should be of the highest standards as mistakes here can cause people their lives.

Also note that this body is considered by the Irish Courts as being expert and the courts rarely overturn its decisions.

Consistency

Consistency in the conduct of the hearing was referred to by representatives, in particular whether the hearing should be adversarial or inquisitorial and whether or not the hearing was de novo.

Several representatives commented that particular members of the Tribunal appear to make very few positive recommendations and that the decision depended more on the Member of the Tribunal hearing the appeal than the merits of their clients case.
(It is not possible to verify these statements, as statistics on decisions made by individual Members of the Tribunal are not available. ) However, it is clear that justice is not seen to be done in certain cases.


A small number of lawyers drew attention to the weight given to medical reports including reports in relation to torture and post-traumatic stress by the Tribunal. It was felt that in some cases sufficient regard was not given to these reports by the Tribunal.

Expertise

Although Members of the Tribunal are required to have at least 5 years experience as a solicitor or barrister, they are not required under the Act to have any experience in or knowledge of refugee or human rights law.
Representatives commented that the level of knowledge of both refugee law and country of origin issues varied among Members of the Tribunal.

Credibility

More than 2/3 (68%) of representatives agreed with the statement that ‘In general, the issue of applicant’s credibility is overemphasized at the Hearing’. Some representatives considered that there was an over emphasis on dates, which are not as relevant in other cultures. In addition, several representatives also referred to their clients being repeatedly questioned about the method of travel to Ireland and the reason they chose this country to make their application for refugee status, in view of the fact that none of these issues are referred to legislation as being relevant to the claim.
A further difficulty referred to by some representatives with regard to the issue of credibility was that, if further information was provided by appellants at the hearing, or if they expanded on answers they have given in the questionnaire or at interview, they are accused of inconsistency and lack of credibility.

It was felt that by interrupting appellants while attempting to tell their story or answer a question posed by their representative, the Tribunal or the Presenting Officer may confuse appellants, especially those who may be particularly vulnerable. This, in turn leads to doubts over their credibility.
More than 3/4 (76%) of representatives agreed that there should be more opportunities of training for lawyers representing asylum seekers at appeal. One barrister mentioned that lawyers are trained for an adversarial system and need to receive training in inquisitorial hearing skills. Many representatives believed that Tribunal Members and Presenting Officers also need further training.

Interpretation

This issue was raised by several representatives, who consider that there are serious problems with the standard of interpretation and what interpreters understand their function to be. While some interpreters are excellent, on the other hand some would not appear to have an adequate command of English for their role. On some occasions, interpreters do not translate exactly what the applicant has said, rather stating what they think should be said.

The appointment of Members of the Tribunal

Members should have experience in refugee law and human rights law prior to appointment. According to some representatives, the manner of appointing Members of the Tribunal lacks transparency. They are currently appointed by the Minister rather than by open competition. Likewise there should be a transparent process for removing Members.

Attitude of Members of the Tribunal towards appellants

Some representatives were critical of the attitudes of some members of the Tribunal towards appellants. One noted that some Tribunal Members were ‘openly disdainful’ towards appellants. Another representative commented that that when an appellant, a woman from a ‘traditional society’ could not recall exact dates of events relevant to her claim, she was told by the Tribunal that she was not taking the proceedings seriously.

Role of Presenting Officers

The role of Presenting Officers was also questioned. Some legal representatives stated that in their view, the Presenting Officers generally do not assist the Tribunal rather they oppose the application. It was also suggested that the Presenting Officers should be legally qualified.

Fees payable under the Refugee Legal Aid Scheme

Some representative considered that the fees payable under the Refugee Legal Aid Scheme are insufficient by comparison with criminal legal aid in the Circuit and Central Criminal Courts and compared with civil legal aid in family cases notwithstanding the complexity of issues, factual and legal, involved in refugee appeals, and the potential consequences of any error for the appellant. This can lead, in the opinion of some representatives, to appellants being represented by less experienced Counsel.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Now,I`m theorizing here but perhaps Pamela Izevbekhai may well have a completely new career path opened up before her.......RTE`s "Asylum Affairs Correspondent" anyone ???
............
I do hope that the Garda Public Order budget is in robust good health !!

A interesting story but you go ahead and use it to make slights at Ms Izevbekhai and asylum seekers.

AlekSmart wrote: »

That description of the results is of course one held by T-Runner and others supportive of the Izevbekhai case and it`s hoped for implications generally.

Please dont speak for or misrepresent me if you dont mind.

Speaking for myself I remain quite satisfied with the current Safeguards offered by the RAT and the very clear Public and Judicial monitoring of its decisions.

Im sure you do. But then you dont seem to decide things on the facts in front of you rather you let your idealogical leanings decide things for you. (Well thats what you seem to believe of others atleast).
have a look at the previous post on the RAT.

That said,I am hopeful that the New Improved methodology to be introduced will even further reduce the incidences of system manipulation which have been so successfully employed thus far

Enough of the Bull. Here are the facts about the so called "manipualtion" of the system.

A decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal can only be challenged by way of judicial review. Leave shall not be granted unless ‘the High Court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision, determination, recommendation, refusal or order is invalid or ought to be quashed’

The Supreme Court has held that:

“As regards the requirement that an Applicant for leave to issue judicial review proceedings establish ‘substantial grounds’ that an administrative decision is invalid or ought to be quashed, this is not an unduly onerous requirement since the High Court must decline leave only where it is satisfied that the application could not succeed or where the grounds relied on are not reasonable or are ‘trivial or tenuous”.

An applicant cannot get a review without substantial grounds. There has been no manipulation of the system: the manipulation I see is people saying something is true when they dont know if it is, in order to try and strenghten their argument. Lets keep some integrity in this debate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

Quote:
I dont think it will correct the fundamental flaw of a non expert body (RAT) being treated as experts by the courts and the subsequent dire results for all to see.

That description of the results is of course one held by T-Runner and others supportive of the Izevbekhai case and it`s hoped for implications generally.

Please dont speak for or misrepresent me if you dont mind.

I don`t see how I can be misrepresenting T-Runner here....Use of the term "Dire Results" is his/her own opinion of the RAT and its operation.

It is not a view I personally Share.

As for the slights,I happen to believe that the current attempts to frustrate the essence of our National Asylum system will if succcessful lead to serious public-order issues.

Whether our Authorities are in any way prepared is a different debate altogether,but all we can do is wait and see if the ECHR can fast-track it`s deliberations.

Lets keep some integrity in this debate.

Thats exactly what the various Decisions in this case have exhibited all along since day 1

ParkRunner

Just one question I want answered by T-Runner. If the European Court of Human Rights deem Pamela's case to be inadmissable, will they be wrong in the same way that the RAT and the High Court are wrong?

blackiebest

EF wrote: »

Just one question I want answered by T-Runner. If the European Court of Human Rights deem Pamela's case to be inadmissable, will they be wrong in the same way that the RAT and the High Court are wrong?

Yes they will. I know I am not T-Runner but i say they would be wrong to make a decision which results in Pamela and her children being deported from this country.

I enjoy reading the posts here, for the most part, as i have learned so much about not only our legal processes but also what we are like as a society. It will be wrong if our civil servants remove Pamela's kids from their friends and school and send them to Nigeria. Legally it may stack up and I do respect that however deporting this family will be as wrong as many of the racist or smug views which pop up here occasionaly. And when Pamela and her kids are still here in one, ten and twenty years time making a valuable contribution to our society I hope the learned but morally bankrupt views expressed here will be history. She is trying to protect her kids and she is doing what we all would do in similiar circumstances.

There may well be holes in her story and I do not know if all is as she has recounted but we would be a better society to grant her and her kids leave to remain here. She is a wonderful woman.

ParkRunner

I have no doubt she is a wonderful woman and she has genuine fears for her children. And also no doubt the children would not get as good an education in Nigeria as they would here but all the civil servants, the Minister for Justice, the Courts and the Gardai can do is apply the law. The Minister is faced with similar heartbreaking stories (true or fabricated) every time he signs a Deportation Order. Why should he make a distinction in this case over all the others, especially as her claims have been rejected at all levels?

Should any asylum seeker who is a wonderful person just be waved through the system? Should the law not apply equally to everyone?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opo

Perhaps someone would clear something up for me.

The courts as far as I am aware are not adjudicating on Izevbekhai’s claim. They have no right or jurisdiction to do that. They may only adjudicate on the procedures employed in assessing the claim.

Thereafter, they are being repeatedly forced to adjudicate on every step of the procedures employed to remove her from the state including the entire process related to subsidiary protection.

The very most she can expect in any of these procedures is a re-entry to these procedures.

For arguments sake, if the courts decided that FGM was grounds for asylum – then the claim could be re-assessed and rejected for the same grounds as previously ie lack of credibility or internal relocation options.

Personally, I don’t believe dragging this through the courts is morally defensible. Nor do I believe that the High Court, Supreme Court, EHCR and whatever else may yet be proposed (10 year Izevbekhai Tribunal of enquiry perhaps) will change the basic facts and doubts in this cringe worthy saga.

And, I may add for T-runners benefit, lawyers are plentiful in the RAT so let’s not fool ourselves that they don’t have their fingers in the pie all the way. Let’s also never labour under any doubt that they will always argue in favour of more work whatever side of the fence they are on. Either way, professionally and in reality, so long as they get paid, they win and they very swiftly move on to the thousands of cases that get absolutely no publicity whatsoever.

I believe Ms. Izevbekhai has done some service in removing doubts that the forthcoming Immigration bill is about a decade overdue and will finally saddle the lawyers with the costs of such protracted and abusive legal actions.

Maybe then we can funnel money to those in Africa where the basic needs such as food and shelter are seen as luxuries rather than international flights to far flung destinations of comparatively wealthy and gullible people.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nice try there. Attack the poster not the post? I notice you didnt comment on the issues raised in my post just had a go at me. But you are deliberately skipping over the fact that it is not me trying to discredit the RAT: this is taken directly from a survey by Barristers, Lawyers directly involved in the asylum process. You and others have declared that you view the RAT as sound. But the people who work with the RAT disagree with you.

So you attack me instead of trying to refute any of the issues that clearly exist with the RAT. How you no comment on any of these matters? Is the RAT not relevant to our asylum process?

Any comment on the fact that the high court decides if cases are substantive enough to be heard before it. Which may put a spanner in the false personal attacks on Pamela for allegedly exploiting the system. Any comment, or attack on that?

By the way I normally cut and paste when Im transferring a quote. Do you retype everything?

T runner

opo wrote: »

Perhaps someone would clear something up for me.

The courts as far as I am aware are not adjudicating on Izevbekhai’s claim. They have no right or jurisdiction to do that. They may only adjudicate on the procedures employed in assessing the claim.

Thereafter, they are being repeatedly forced to adjudicate on every step of the procedures employed to remove her from the state including the entire process related to subsidiary protection.

The very most she can expect in any of these procedures is a re-entry to these procedures.

For arguments sake, if the courts decided that FGM was grounds for asylum – then the claim could be re-assessed and rejected for the same grounds as previously ie lack of credibility or internal relocation options.

Personally, I don’t believe dragging this through the courts is morally defensible. Nor do I believe that the High Court, Supreme Court, EHCR and whatever else may yet be proposed (10 year Izevbekhai Tribunal of enquiry perhaps) will change the basic facts and doubts in this cringe worthy saga.

And, I may add for T-runners benefit, lawyers are plentiful in the RAT so let’s not fool ourselves that they don’t have their fingers in the pie all the way. Let’s also never labour under any doubt that they will always argue in favour of more work whatever side of the fence they are on. Either way, professionally and in reality, so long as they get paid, they win and they very swiftly move on to the thousands of cases that get absolutely no publicity whatsoever.

I believe Ms. Izevbekhai has done some service in removing doubts that the forthcoming Immigration bill is about a decade overdue and will finally saddle the lawyers with the costs of such protracted and abusive legal actions.

Maybe then we can funnel money to those in Africa where the basic needs such as food and shelter are seen as luxuries rather than international flights to far flung destinations of comparatively wealthy and gullible people.

Hope this clears it up. FGM is already grounds for asylum in Ireland.
You have hit the nail on the head, the asylum seeker has little hope after the RAT. There are alternatives in other countries.

She may indeed get the same result if it was put back to the RAT because of they consider state protections to be adequate in Nigeria even though de facto they are not.

I dont think credibility was ever an issue with the courts.

If the motive of the legal profession in that questionnaire was solely to make more work for themselves then you should be able to easily refute the issues raised from it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

opo

T runner wrote: »

Hope this clears it up. FGM is already grounds for asylum in Ireland.
You have hit the nail on the head, the asylum seeker has little hope after the RAT. There are alternatives in other countries.

Does the UNHCR share your concerns?

T runner wrote: »

She may indeed get the same result if it was put back to the RAT because of they consider state protections to be adequate in Nigeria even though de facto they are not.

That is your opinion. If I recall correctly, in a similar type of case (ie drawn out - inconsistent, Nigerian mother - with the constant undertones of racism) Olivia Agbonlahor also claimed in court that her daughter would be subject to FGM. When she was returned - she ended up in Ghana in weeks. There is still coverage about the autism aspect of her son but mysteriously no mention of FGM.

T runner wrote: »

I dont think credibility was ever an issue with the courts.

Was it an issue with her case at any stage?

T runner wrote: »

If the motive of the legal profession in that questionnaire was solely to make more work for themselves then you should be able to easily refute the issues raised from it?

Of course I could if I was a lawyer and the State was paying my bills win or lose. That's kinda my point.

opo

T runner wrote: »

Any comment on the fact that the high court decides if cases are substantive enough to be heard before it. QUOTE]

May I interject?

This again labels my point. Judicial review is the most abused legal process of all and the most effective method of thwarting legitimate attempts to streamline the asylum process - further penalising Irish taxpayers. Would you care to hazard the success rate of JR in asylum cases?

I note that there were a thousand JR cases referred to in this article alone.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bogus-asylum-seekers-escaping-deportation-1258273.html

Again, I am not a lawyer, but 1000 reviews of the procedures????

Do you see my point yet?

ParkRunner

JR's have a very low success rate in the asylum context. Ever since the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was setup the number of JR's taken against asylum decisions has multiplied dramatically as the legal profession try to replace the fees they were receiving for personal injuries claims by taking on the asylum procedure. Hence the increase in media focus and high profile challenges.

In recent years, after being hammered by the legal profession the RAT is becoming a lot more professional as they try to cover every angle and reduce the risk of JR's taken. And having been hit with so many challenges the RAT decisions are becoming so detailed and carefully considered that the High Court is finding it very difficult to find Substantial Grounds needed to pursue judicial review proceedings.

AlekSmart

Ever since the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was setup the number of JR's taken against asylum decisions has multiplied dramatically as the legal profession try to replace the fees they were receiving for personal injuries claims by taking on the asylum procedure.

A worthy contender for "Post of the Thread" award.

T runner

opo wrote: »

Does the UNHCR share your concerns?

Off the top of my head the UNHCR handbook states that the burden of evidence should not be solely on the applicant.

The RAT requires Clear and Convincing Proof based on a Canadian precedent which differs from the UNHCR which requires reasonable proof.

There is also the inconsistency in the RAT with regards the way they interview inquisatorial (as it should be) vs adversarial.

Have a lok through my post on the RAT and compare with their handbook.

That is your opinion. If I recall correctly, in a similar type of case (ie drawn out - inconsistent, Nigerian mother - with the constant undertones of racism) Olivia Agbonlahor also claimed in court that her daughter would be subject to FGM. When she was returned - she ended up in Ghana in weeks. There is still coverage about the autism aspect of her son but mysteriously no mention of FGM.

I have given country of origin evidence on this thread to show statee protections are inadequate. It is not my opinion that there has been no prosecutions in Nigeria under their FGM Laws it is a fact.

Was it an issue with her case at any stage?

You tell me: you suggested it was.

Of course I could if I was a lawyer and the State was paying my bills win or lose. That's kinda my point

.
Im sorrry but you dont need to be a lawyer to see for example that having one member (nor expert in asylum law) adjudicating these cases is not adequate. Other countries have 3. Are the lawyers over there just manipulating things or does 3 not make more sense?

The RAT, as it is, is not an expert body and when the courts regard it thus it means justice may not be done.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

I'm not attacking you; I'm attacking your assumption that by exposing the alleged flaws and inadequacies of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, you can legitimately infer that Mrs Izevbekhai deserves asylum in Ireland. You are relying on a logical fallacy. Even if you can prove rampant, wholesale corruption within that particular tribunal, it still does not follow that all of its decisions have been incorrect.

Who implied rampant wholesale corruption but you?
My post was in reply to a series of posts the last by Aleksmart declaring satisfaction with the RAT. People on the send her back side are allowed back the RAT with no substantiation but people on the other side are not allowed question their decisions? I dont think so.

Furthermore, I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you that Mrs Izevbekhai's case has now gone far beyond the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, before which she pled her case over three years ago. It has since been heard by the High Court—which has the authority to review, amend, and overturn any decision by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal—and it may eventually be heard by the European Court of Human Rights and by the Supreme Court of this country. However, you persist in your monocular attack on the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, as if that were the only authority that mattered.

Your missing the whole point. The High Court does not delve into the particulars of cases from the RAT and is by its own admission slow to overturn cases from such an "expert body".
So if a mistake is made in the RAT you may end with the the long drawn out saga we have hear. It all points to reform of the asylum process.

To return to a question asked by a previous poster: If the ECHR and/or Supreme Court concur that Mrs Izevbekhai's asylum petition is without merit, will you respond by questioning the integrity of those courts?

I havent questioned the integrity of any court. A large group of knowledgeable Lawyers and Barrister have raised issues about the rAT.

AlekSmart

People on the send her back side are allowed back the RAT with no substantiation but people on the other side are not allowed question their decisions? I dont think so.

That is simply not the case.

I have declared my personal ongoing satisfaction with the RAT`s integrity and it`s performance within the context of what any country in our position can afford to provide.

Of course there is scope for improvements in ALL area`s of this process and I suspect that is a view held universally on this topic.

However to state that you (on the "other" side) are Not Allowed to question the RAT`s decisions is risable.

Ms Izevbekhai`s legal and campaign advisers are doing a very good job at questioning the RAT`s decisions and you are doing an equally excellent excellent job doing just that here on Boards.

There is no question of you not being allowed to argue your points in a free and fair manner.

ParkRunner

If a challenge is taken against a RAT decision and the applicant and their professional experienced legal representatives (very experienced in Pamela's case) can establish that substantial grounds exist, then the Court will conduct a full and thorough judicial review of the decision and quash the decision if it is found to be flawed.

Most however cant establish substantial grounds because the decision of the RAT is so watertight and carefully considered i.e. properly and lawfully made and they are refused leave to seek a full judicial review. It is the same when challenging planning decisions and the substantial grounds requirement is necessary to prevent every decision being subjected to lengthy court proceedings and allow the government to actually enforce a decision that it has made, where that decision has been lawfully and properly made

T runner

opo wrote: »

T runner wrote: »

Any comment on the fact that the high court decides if cases are substantive enough to be heard before it. QUOTE]

May I interject?

This again labels my point. Judicial review is the most abused legal process of all and the most effective method of thwarting legitimate attempts to streamline the asylum process - further penalising Irish taxpayers. Would you care to hazard the success rate of JR in asylum cases?

I note that there were a thousand JR cases referred to in this article alone.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bogus-asylum-seekers-escaping-deportation-1258273.html

Again, I am not a lawyer, but 1000 reviews of the procedures????

Do you see my point yet?

Thats Tom Brady for ya! From department of Justice

JUDICIAL REVIEWS
One hundred and ninety-six legal challenges to the
deportation/transfer process, through the medium
of Judicial Review by persons faced with deportation
were instituted in 2007.