Liberty granted to cross-examine in challenge to revocation of permission to remain

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – application to cross-examine in order to resolve conflict of fact - Bangladeshi national challenging the decision revoking his permission to remain – conflict in affidavit evidence – what information was conveyed in exchanges between Bangladeshi national and member of An Garda Siochana - objections to the order for cross-examination sought - unduly disruptive – Guard can be facilitated - administrative inconvenience does not in itself have huge weight to be balanced against the requirements of justice - submitted that the conflict does not go to the heart of the proceedings and is not in itself dispositive of them - respondents specifically plead discretion and non-disclosure in the statement of opposition - conduct and degree of disclosure is relevant to the proceedings on the pleadings - submitted that the court can disregard evidence in an affidavit where there is conflict with evidence in another affidavit - only thing Garda could say would be to reiterate her affidavit, so therefore cross-examination would not add anything - submits that where a challenge is against an administrative decision, cross-examination could go behind that in a way that involves a consideration of merits rather than of the decision-making process itself - if the matter to which the conflict of evidence relates is one that properly and relevantly arises on the pleadings, then in principle the court should lean in favour of cross-examination - need for exceptional circumstances - what is meant by exceptional circumstances - vital centrality of cross-examination to resolving factual disputes – relevant caselaw - paper based approach rejected - clear conflict of fact relevant to at least one of the issues on the pleadings court should lean in favour of cross-examination – cross examination of Garda and first named applicant limited to the conflicts of fact arising –