Refugee Appeals Tribunal had failed to exercise its discretionary power on decision to transfer asylum seekers to UK

Court of Appeal - asylum and immigration - judicial review - article 17 of Dublin III Regulation (Regulation EU 604/2013) - appeal from two written judgments of the High Court in judicial review proceedings brought against a decision of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which had upheld the decision of the Office of the Refugee Appeals Commissioner to transfer the application for refugee status to the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom - in whom is vested the discretion referred to in article 17 Dublin III - whether the Minister is required to publish a policy, guidance, or criteria in respect of the exercise of the article 17 of Dublin III discretion - whether private and/or family rights under article 8 ECHR and/or article 7 of the Charter must be considered in the transfer process - whether the “best interests of the children” under article 6 of Dublin III had been adequately considered by RAT - the Minister may, as a matter of law, vest the discretionary power in article 17 of Dublin III in whomsoever he choses - the exercise of article 17 of Dublin III discretion is not the exercise of an exclusively executive power, but rather the application of humanitarian and compassionate principles to the determination of jurisdiction under Dublin III - no requirement at law that the criteria for the exercise of discretion be published by the respondents - arguments not put before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal can not form the basis of the judicial review - trial judge was in error in taking the view, albeit obiter, that the decision maker had no obligation to consider the impact of article 8 of ECHR and article 7 of the Charter - best interests of the children considered - appeal allowed in relation to first written judgment - appeal dismissed in relation to second written judgment.