The State has rejected complaints that seven Pakistani businessmen were prevented from conducting their business while in Ireland and that they had been told to leave by next Monday.
At the High Court yesterday Ms Eileen Barrington, for the State, said the men had indicated to the authorities that they would finish their business in Dublin this weekend. Next Monday had been fixed for their departure but, if they wished to stay longer, they would be allowed to do so.
The businessmen were arrested after they arrived at Dublin Airport on Friday and were detained in Mountjoy Prison over the weekend. They were freed on Monday afternoon following High Court proceedings arising out of the State's refusal to allow them to "land".
Mr Peter Finlay SC, for the men, complained to Mr Justice Kelly about the State's actions since the men's release and asked the judge to clarify what had happened in court last Monday.
Mr Finlay said there seemed to have been a misunderstanding over what had taken place in court.
He understood there had been undertakings that his clients were to be discharged; that their solicitor would collect their passports at the Aliens Office; and that the stamp refusing them entry to the State would be cancelled.
It now transpired that the passports were stamped "cancelled", with the addition of the words "without prejudice". There was also a stamp indicating the men may not engage in any business in the State for the duration of their visas. The visas had been limited to next Monday, and this was not in accordance with the undertakings given to the court last Monday.
Matters were now so bad that two of the businessmen had been handed boarding passes by the immigration officer at Dublin Airport for a return flight to Zurich.
Mr Finlay said he understood that flight had left and the men's return tickets were now of no use. This indicated the attitude being adopted towards his clients.
Counsel argued that part of the arrangement was that his clients would indicate where they would stay in Dublin and that their visas, which were open until February 14th, would be honoured.
Ms Barrington said she believed there was no disagreement between the parties. The use of the words "without prejudice" on the passports was for the businessmen's benefit.
The three-month visas did not give them the right to stay in the State for a period of three months, but it entitled them to seek permission to enter the State. The length of stay was decided by the immigration officer. In normal circumstances, the men would have been asked when they intended leaving the State and that would be inserted.
The men were precluded from setting up a business in the State but were not precluded from carrying out business. She was instructed that the men's solicitor had contacted a Department official who asked when they would be finished their business.
It was indicated they would be finished this coming weekend and that was why next Monday was fixed as the date of departure. They could have indicated they wished to stay for a longer period.
Mr Justice Kelly said counsel for the State had made it clear that if the men wished to stay longer than next Monday they might do so. Mr Finlay had complained that the form of stamp applied to the passports purporting to cancel the refusal to land was not what had been agreed. That was a matter Mr Finlay would have to take further if he was minded to do so.
When the matter had been before him last Monday, Mr Justice Kelly had said that no undertakings had been given. The men had been released, their passports returned, the refusal stamp had been cancelled, their money was returned and it was agreed there would be a measure of co-operation about where the men would stay.
If Mr Finlay's clients were dissatisfied with that they might take such steps as they thought fit, but Mr Justice Kelly said there was nothing for him to decide in the matter.