Detention of Chinese national on foot of deportation order was not unlawful due to mere technical errors

Criminal law – Article 40 – habeas corpus – asylum and immigration – s. 5 of the Immigration Act 1999 – Immigration Act, 1999 (Deportation) Regulations, 2005 – removal from the State – Schedule 1 to the European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013 – applicant’s failure to make an application for subsidiary protection – whether an expression for subsidiary protection is sufficient to render his deportation and, hence, his detention for that purpose unlawful – detention of the applicant is for the purpose of removing him from the State on foot of a deportation order – Article 11 of the Aliens Order 1946 – whether the detention order is bad on its face – because it wrongly recites the number of days that the applicant had already spent in detention before it was made and because it sets out three separate grounds of suspicion as the basis for making it, rather than the two grounds of suspicion relied upon by the same officer as the basis for making the earlier detention order – Costello, The Law of Habeas Corpus in Ireland (Dublin, 2006) – there is no error on the face of the detention order that renders the applicant’s detention unlawful – whether a proposed application for subsidiary protection entitles the applicant to avail of the provisions of reg. 4 of the European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013 – European Union (Subsidiary Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 – applicant’s argument that he is entitled to rely on the suspensive effect of the provisions of reg. 4 of the 2013 Regulations fails, in limine – Article 40 refused.