High Court, dismisses challenges to decisions made by the International Protection Office (IPO) first instance decisions involving the use of outside contractors, on the grounds that the outside contractors assist the IPO but do not supplant the Commissioner's role of investigating the claim; but the court grants judicial review of decision refusing second applicant leave to remain, on the grounds that the second applicant’s personal interview did not include everything that was relevant to the Minister for Justice’s decision regarding his application for leave to remain.
Judicial review – asylum and immigration – challenges to International Protection Offices first instance decisions – use of outside contractors – whether outside contractors rather than the IPO investigate the claims – ultra vires - merely assistance to the staff of the Commissioner in their conduct of an investigation – affidavit evidence of caseworker - draft report - caseworker is central at all times to the investigation of a particular application, with the HEO having overall control and responsibility - panel member is a team member, working under the immediate direction of the caseworker - panel member assists the civil servants - applicable provisions and examination process applied – personal interview - shall include anything that would, in the opinion of the international protection officer, be relevant to the Minister’s decision – failed to refer to second applicant’s engagement - implied duty on the respondents, at the international protection interview, to actively question an applicant regarding permission to remain - duty of candour – second applicant granted judicial review of decision refusing him permission to remain – all other relief refused.