Seven Pakistani businessmen are to sue the State for damages after they were arrested by immigration officials and detained in Mountjoy Prison following their arrival here on business.
Awarding costs to the men yesterday of their High Court challenge to the legality of their detention, Mr Justice O'Higgins said the court had been told, "at its very mildest" and "with glorious understatement", that there was "unfortunate confusion" in relation to the men's detention. He had no doubt the requirements of justice meant the men should get their costs so as not to "add insult to injury".
The men took High Court proceedings last November, complaining of wrongful arrest and detention on their arrival at Dublin Airport. They said they were prevented from conducting their business while in Ireland.
The seven, who claimed they had valid visas, were arrested on arrival at Dublin airport on November 24th last and detained in Mountjoy Prison. They were freed on November 27th after High Court proceedings.
Mr Peter Finlay SC, for the men, yesterday applied for costs of those proceedings. He said certain media reports had suggested the men had absconded on their release and deceived the court. This was clearly untrue and copies of the men's passports showed they had arrived back in Lahore, Pakistan on December 4th.
Mr Justice O'Higgins said the State had claimed its officers were entitled to act as they did, notwithstanding the validity of the visas, because the seven had no accommodation booked in Ireland and there was no one to meet them. They also had no specific addresses of the plants they were to visit in Ireland and no valid visas for Northern Ireland, although two had visas for the UK. They also had open tickets and their landing cards had an address in Northern Ireland.
The State's reasons would be acceptable were it not that the State's officers gave the men an opportunity to telephone their host, who lived in Ballygawley, Co Tyrone, only after a decision had already been made refusing them permission to land. That decision was made unreasonably.
Clearly the immigration authorities had to act under time constraints but it seemed reasonable that the men would have been allowed to speak to their host before a decision was made refusing them permission to land, the judge said. He added his comments were pertinent to the question of costs.