Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in habeas corpus proceedings, dismisses two applications for the release of subjects of deportation orders who were arrested and detained, finding that: a) it would be totally unreal to construe the regulations to mean that Cloverhill Prison was not one of the places listed in the legislation as a prescribed place for the purposes of detention; b) in any event, the regulations have been validly amended; and c) the argument that the regulations do not amount to prescribing places was misconceived.
Article 40 applications – asylum and immigration – marriage of convenience – reg. 28(2) of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 548 of 2015) – deportation order – s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 – alleged ineffectiveness of regulation 5 of the 2005 regulations – Immigration Act 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 2005 (S.I. No. 55 of 2005) – Daniel Greenberg, Craies on Legislation, 11th ed. (London, 2016) – s. 78 of the International Protection Act 2015 – s. 26(2)(f) of the Interpretation Act 2005 – Immigration Act 1999 (Deportation) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 – John Stanley, Immigration and Citizenship Law (Dublin, 2017) – argument that the 2016 regulations do not amount to prescribing of places – applicants are in lawful detention.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now