Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE SUPREME COURT has ruled that the Minister for Justice must reconsider a decision to remove an Algerian man with alleged links to Islamic terrorism against his removal from the State.
The State claimed the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is involved with Islamic terrorism and was convicted of terrorism offences in Algeria and France.
The Minister issued a deportation order after gardaí informed the Department of Justice the activities of the man and his associates were “of serious concern” and “contrary to the State’s security”.
The man, aged in his 50s and living in Ireland for several years, denies being involved in terrorism and claims that if deported to Algeria he is at risk of being tortured and subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment due to his political views.
The man, represented by Michael Lynn SC and David Leonard Bl, appealed a High Court order which found the Minister’s decision that there were no substantial grounds to find that the man would be at real risk of ill-treatment if deported to his home country was lawful.
The State opposed the appeal.
In its judgment today, five judges at the Supreme Court unanimously quashed the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke the deportation order issued in December last year.
The court remitted the man’s case back to the Minister for further reconsideration.
Giving the court’s decision, Justice Donal O Donnell said in this case there was “no reasonable basis” upon which any Minister could conclude there was no real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – that nobody should be treated to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
The judge said he found it difficult to understand precisely how the Minister arrived at the conclusions in respect of the man that he was not at risk of being treated contrary to Article 3.
The judge said it was not sufficiently clear why the Minister came to the conclusion that the man could be deported to Algeria without a real risk of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment and why the Minister considered such a decision ought not to be revoked.
The judge said he had come to the conclusion he “could not have the level of assurance necessary that the decision sets out a clear reasoned path and one that was not flawed or incorrectly unjustifiable limitations or irrelevant legal considerations”.
The Minister’s finding was in contrast to an earlier finding by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal that considered the man’s application for protection that he was at risk if deported to Algeria.
To depart from such a finding required clear reasons, he said.
The judge said the revocation application is to go back to the Minister and should be addressed by focused submissions, including up-to-date information concerning Algeria.
There was no reason why the fresh consideration should not occur promptly, the judge said. Submissions, he said, should be focused on the issue whether there is a real risk on substantial grounds of the man being treated contrary to Article 3.
If the man only submits a generalised complaint with no attempt to focus submissions on his personal situation and the up-to-date position in Algeria, then he will find it difficult to complain about a decision which treats the issue at the same level of generality, the judge added.
Once the matter has been reconsidered by the Minister any outstanding issues in relation to the case should go back before the High Court, the judge added.
The Chief Justice Susan Denham, Justice John MacMenamin, Justice Elizabeth Dunne and Justice Iseult O’Malley all concurred with the decision.
Speaking after the judgment the man’s solicitor Gavin Booth of KRW Law welcomed the court’s decision.
He said that “it was always our case that the Minister could not deport this man without breaching Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.
The man denies involvement in terrorism and rejects claims he is involved in groups such as Al-Qaeda. He has been in custody for some months and will remain in detention pending the outcome of the process.
During the 1990s, he was convicted of several offences in Algeria and received three life sentences and two death sentences, which are no longer carried out.
Those offences include forming an armed terrorist group intending to spread murder, sabotage, possession of prohibited war weapons assassination, theft intending to harm the security of his home country.
He was also convicted and jailed for eight years following his arrested in France in 2002.
A French court found him guilty of charges including membership of a criminal organisation preparing an Act of Terrorism.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Grim Times
@John Quill: worse to come unfortunately.
@SFAnkleTapper: where did you get your crystal ball?
@Bitcoin Buddy: Sure you’re into healing crystals, bitcoin pyramid schemes and all sorts of superstition!
This advice is conflicting, on the one hand family can attend but on the other a maximum of 10 can be in the church or cemetery for burial. The one thing any family member would want is to attend the funeral of their nearest and dearest,there is no reason at present to prevent this or restrict this provided social distancing is implemented. All family members should be able to attend.
@Honeybee: I’ve a huge family, we’d have to draw straws if the 10 attendees rule applied.
@hellsbells: Imagine the emotional impact of being told that not only do you not get to see a family member before their death but that you cannot even attend the funeral. This could have severe repercussions on people for the rest of their lives including relationships within a family.
@hellsbells: better than attending multiple funerals
@Honeybee: I absolutely agree with you, but you have to look around at what other countries are now doing. For example in Spain funerals are banned no more than 3 people I believe to attend including the ones who have to carry the coffins in full protective gear. In Italy it’s been worse even. So yes, it’s is by far upsetting but it is to ensure there is less infections and less deaths overall.
Harsh as it may seem, there is obviously a real worry that by breaking these guidelines to go to a funeral, you could be the cause of many more funerals.
I’m fully certain that all who can’t attend a funeral will be forgiven and there will be ample opportunities to pay respects once this has all passed.
@Dara O’Brien: exactly, those attending who are not living with the deceased should simply not be interacting, especially if different households must travel to the funeral. Sorry to say this but this virus doesn’t care or disappear for the day for us to follow social norms. Those who attend have to heavily consider the risk they are putting on their other family members and elderly. Sorrowful times, but alas we have not even reached the peak yet with many more deaths expected over the coming months. There will be time to grief and pay respects at a later stage when we are confident this grave risk has past.
@Derek: I went to a funeral yesterday and there was at least 5 meters between everyone there. Some folk stood at their own loved ones graves well away from the funeral. The locals lined the street on both sides but everyone stayed 5m apart also.
The majority of us drove to the village, stayed away from each other during the funeral and then drove straight home.
@David Corrigan: I’m sorry for your loss. It’s hard to properly mourn when you can’t interact with everyone else who knew the deceased.
@David Corrigan: There David,you have shown how it is possible to attend a funeral while not exposing anyone to unnecessary risk. I am sorry for the loss of the poor individual you grieve, these are strange and difficult times in which we find ourselves.
So there can be 100 people in a supermarket but only 10 in a church or graveyard? Makes sense.
I really dont how it will work anyway, as a loved one is buried, all you want to do is be close to your family.
Sad times for funeral chasing politicians.
@G Row: Not the time or the place for such comments, IMO
@Jo H: That’s your opinion, are you a fan?
@G Row: too sad that you have no humanity
@Oliver Mahon: I have family members on the front line, real front line, nurses on Covid wards. I do not trust our so called leaders with their lives.
You obviously do, too sad that you are that gullible.
Never ceases to amaze me that every discussion on this site ends up with an exchange of vile comments and insults .
@Gerry Fogarty: Are you new here?
Politicians will be delighted if this Policy remains even after the crisis is over.
Less work after all that’s most of what they do.
Will we miss the Gombeens at Funeral’s
Never ceases to amaze me that every discussion on this site ends up with N exchange of vile comments and insults
I read something very similar to this in a WhatsApp message 3 or 4 weeks ago the journal debunked it as fake news Ironic!
@Seanboy: everything was different 3 or 4 weeks ago and these restrictions were not in place then.4 weeks ago you could still go to the pub
@Seanboy: It was fake news back then. Clearly, things have changed.
10 family members at a loved 1s funeral and the likes of Tesco’s and Aldi etc have 40 / 50/ 60 people in the same area…. i feel fit anyone loosing a family member or close friend at this time
That’s your opinion, you a fan?
have your say