High Court, in a judicial review brought by a mother and daughter directing the Minister for Justice to process an application for protection, relief and ancillary benefits as a victim of human trafficking: (1) refuses leave to amend the proceedings by joining the Garda National Immigration Bureau as respondent to the proceedings, on the grounds that the mother and daughter’s legal representatives were fully conversant with the alleged responsibilities of the intended respondent prior to the institution of the proceedings and failed to explain why they were not originally named as a party; and (2) refuses to amend their pleadings to include a challenge to the purported decision of the Bureau’s that the mother was not a victim of human trafficking, on the grounds that it would not be appropriate to make such an amendment where the investigation as to whether or not the mother had been the victim of trafficking is ongoing but stalled due to the lack of co-operation from the mother.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – application to amend proceedings – new grounds and new respondent, namely, The Garda National Immigration Bureau – mother and daughter challenging the decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to refuse the infant daughter refugee status – challenged the decision on the basis that as the Tribunal had expressly found that the mother was a victim of human trafficking, certain obligations on the part of the State were triggered – prior to the determination of the daughter’s appeal wrote to the Removals Unit of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service – stated that the Tribunal clearly found that the mother was a victim of trafficking – “Administrative Arrangements” in respect of the issuance of temporary resident permits for persons who claim to be victims of trafficking and who are co-operating with an investigation - original proceedings – sought orders directing the Minister to process an application for protection, relief and ancillary benefits as a victim of trafficking – made numerous allegations against the State for its failure to implement various international legal obligations and in respect of the failure of the respondents to deal with the request for administrative immigration arrangements for the protection of victims of trafficking – prior to the hearing, GNIB paid her a visit – made a report – report stated that the mother was not subjected to exploitation as defined in the human trafficking legislation - furnished this to the mother – court concluded that the Tribunal had made no finding that the mother was a victim of human trafficking - alleged failure of Ireland to criminalise trafficking in the manner required by the Directive could only arise in a manner which might ground relief in respect of events happening or complaints arising after April 2013 – allegations predate April 2013 – court held that even if the Tribunal had found that the mother was a victim of trafficking, no obligations connected to the Directive existed on the date of the decision - court granted leave to move an amendment to the grounds - seek to quash the decision of the GNIB finding that the mother was not a victim of trafficking – seek an order demanding a member of the GNIB not below the rank of Superintendent to take action to determine if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants might have been subject to any of the offences referred to in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2011/36/EU – argued that the new respondent is a ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of the Anti-Human Trafficking Directive - no indication has been offered as to why the respondent was not sought to be added when these proceedings were first instituted - no basis is given for the assertion that the intended respondent was on notice of the alleged reasonable grounds belief that the applicants were victims of trafficking - significant delay pursuing these reliefs - fully conversant with the alleged responsibilities of the intended respondent prior to the institution of these proceedings - in the absence of any explanation as to why the intended respondent was not a named party originally, it would be inappropriate to extend the time to add them as a party at this stage - difficulties there have been in interviewing the mother – declined to make a statement and adamant that she did not want Garda involvement - the investigation into the mother’s claims is ongoing - inappropriate to grant leave to amend the proceedings to seek an order of certiorari of a decision which does not purport to be a decision on whether or not the applicant has been the victim of trafficking – whether these matters could have been pleaded prior to the institution of these pleadings.