A landmark judgment which clarifies a number of key procedural aspects of the administration of the 1999 Immigration Act could lead to the early deportation of illegal immigrants confident they had slipped the deportation net, immigration officials said yesterday.
The warning followed Mr Justice Finnegan's judgment in the case of asylum-seeker Mr Dimitru Popa, whose deportation was aborted in Amsterdam due to "a misapprehension" of an earlier High Court order. The judge rejected every ground on which the Romanian had sought to remain in the State.
Mr Popa, whose counsel, Mr Michael Forde, said he would be challenging the judge's rulings in the Supreme Court, was granted £5,000 cash bail in the absence of an independent surety for £5,000 which would have to be approved by the High Court.
Mr Paddy McCarthy SC, for the State, objected to bail on the grounds that Mr Popa had been arrested in possession of false identity papers. Terms of bail included a requirement that he report three times a week to Harcourt Terrace Garda station between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m and furnish an address at which he would reside.
Mr Justice Finnegan said it would be oppressive not to grant him bail since it was unlikely he would be heard in the Supreme Court before the end of this year.
Mr Popa was refused leave to challenge procedures which had been adopted by the Minister for Justice in handling his application for refugee status, notifying him of the outcome and the Minister's intention to deport him, and the legality of the deportation order.
Mr Justice Finnegan said Mr Popa arrived in Ireland in 1997 and his application for asylum was processed in accordance with procedures. He was assessed on January 12th, 1999, and on May 25th of that year, he was informed his application had been refused. His appeal was set for last January 12th. Only his then legally aided solicitor appeared and the appeals authority, having considered the documentation, recommended his appeal be dismissed.
Notice of the dismissal and of the Minister's proposal to make a deportation order was sent to him on February 12th, when he was also told he had a further 15 days to make representations to the Minister. In the absence of representations, he made a deportation order on April 12th.
Mr Justice Finnegan said that while he accepted Mr Popa had not received this and other communications, the fault lay in the fact he had changed address without notifying the authorities as he was obliged to do. He held that specific sections of the immigration legislation challenged by Mr Popa were not repugnant to the Constitution and were not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He further ruled that the Minister had acted appropriately under procedures notifying him of his intention to make a deportation order and informing him of the making of the order.
He was satisfied Mr Popa had been given an opportunity to contact a solicitor following his arrest on August 1st and that he had been held in lawful custody since his rearrest outside the Four Courts on August 9th.
Mr Justice Finnegan said the case put forward on Mr Popa's behalf did not even meet the low threshold he had to cross in seeking leave for judicial review, that he had a fair case to be tried.