The State intends to argue in the High Court that it is meeting its legal obligations by providing unaccommodated asylum seekers with €113.80 per week along with other supports.
However, the court is first being asked to deal with the State’s contention that many of the claims made by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), in an action alleging Ireland is failing to provide suitable reception conditions to meet the basic needs of all asylum seekers, are inadmissible due to being based on “hearsay”.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on Friday scheduled for the State’s motion, challenging IHREC’s inclusion of allegations based on interviews with anonymised asylum seekers, to be heard on February 29th.
There are 706 male asylum seekers without shelter who have been offered €113.80 per week, which is €75 more than the regular rate.
Orla Tinsley: The reality of having to fight for basic rights from all angles is exhausting
Dancing with the Stars 2025: Who are the contestants, when is it on and more
When the Nazis occupied Paris, his colleagues fled, but 84-year-old Sparrow Robertson kept filing his sports column
Joe Humphreys: Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
David Conlan Smyth SC, for the Minister for Integration, the Attorney General and Ireland, told the court his clients recognise that, amid “unprecedented pressure” on services, the Minister has not been able to provide shelter via the International Protection Accommodation Services to all single men seeking international protection.
The Minister accepts his legal obligations were not met in previous cases ruled on by the court last April. However, he said “we are in a different situation now, where there has been a change in what is provided that will have to be addressed”.
He said the State intends to defend the case by arguing the “significant” increase to the weekly allowance, together with some other measures, is sufficient to meet its obligations to the male applicants under the European Union (Reception Conditions) Regulations of 2018 and other relevant laws.
He said the uplifted payment comes along with an initial €100 Dunnes Stores voucher, a leaflet about GP services available to applicants and details of other services. He said the men are triaged for vulnerabilities, such as those related to health or age.
The High Court ruled last April that the Minister breached his obligations under the 2018 regulations and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by failing to provide “material reception conditions” to an Afghan asylum seeker who had to resort to begging when he was left homeless upon his arrival in Ireland last February.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the Minister “fell far short of what is required”, particularly in terms of the lack of accommodation/shelter and the provision of food and basic hygiene. Giving the homeless applicant a €28 Dunnes Stores voucher and addresses of private charities “does not come close to what is required” by the 2018 regulation, the judge said.
Eoin McCullough SC, for IHREC, on Friday said the “crucial question” in the case is whether the increased weekly payment, together with the supports, is sufficient to meet the State’s obligations.
Addressing the State’s concerns about the use of accounts of anonymised international protection applicants, he said many of those affected are scared to be identified within the proceedings.
“The facts are not in dispute ... There is no dispute that accommodation is not being provided for the class of people here,” he said.
He submitted that permitting the State to bring a motion over the anonymity, rather than addressing it at trial, would unduly delay the case.
Mr Conlan Smyth outlined various claims that, due to the anonymity of those making them, mean the Minister cannot interrogate them but is “entitled to address”. He contended this issue cannot wait until the trial date.
Ms Justice Hyland said this case is an important one “but that does not mean it should depart from the normal procedures that are tried and tested”. Both sides are entitled to fairness and this issue must be dealt with ahead of the trial, she said.
The motion will not substantially delay the action, she said, as she was putting in place fast-track procedures.
She held that a judge can determine at the substantial trial of the case a dispute about IHREC’s ability, under section 41 of the 2014 IHREC Act, to make claims about specific legal entitlements originating from the 2018 regulation and an EU directive related to the State’s obligations to asylum seekers.
IHREC’s case seeks mandatory orders that would require the Minister to establish a system that vindicates the fundamental rights of international protection applicants.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here
