Minister should have revoked deportation orders after erroneously informing Nigerian mother that she was granted subsidiary protection

Judicial review – telescoped hearing – Nigerian mother and two children challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice to issue a deportation order against them – mother applied for asylum on her own behalf and on behalf of her first child – when her second child was born, she made a separate application for asylum on behalf of that child – they were refused international protection – Minister initially sent letter stating that the mother and first child were entitled to subsidiary protection, but this was later revoked - deportation order in respect of the second child issued after proceedings had issued in relation to the mother and first child – whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the deportation order of the second child – whether, due to the first, erroneous letter, the Minister was obliged to consider their representations afresh – legislative framework governing deportation – whether the Minister erred in law in finding that their Article 8 rights were not engaged – argued that the assessment of their right to private life under Article 8 was irrational and that there was no consideration of the proportionality of the decisions to make deportation orders in respect of them - failure to plead Article 8 of the ECHR in the statement of grounds - whether the statement of grounds as presently formulated encompasses a challenge to the deportation orders on Article 8 grounds – whether the Minister was prejudiced by the paucity of the pleadings – adjourned to allow submissions responding to substantive consideration of the Article 8 ground.