346:, the first part of the test was whether the Applicants had a "sufficient interest in the matter". The judge explained that at this stage it is unclear with each Applicant as to what is his/her precise interest in the case. The judge agreed with O'Donovan J (High Court judge), that it is not right to have such a big group of Applicants put together. Furthermore, Judge McGuinness said that the biggest problem here for the Applicants are parts B) and C) of the test in G v DPP, she stated that if the Applicants affidavit had a specific and strong ground as to why such relief was being sought, then the Applicants would get such relief.
25:
105:
357:, ex parte Turgut 1 All ER 719, where "1,500 specific pages of specific evidence were submitted to the Court." In this case, on the other hand, the judge could not find whether the facts supported a proper ground for the relief being fought, "because neither in the Adam proceedings nor the Iordache proceedings did the pleadings set out any specific evidence that the Minister had failed to have regard to the situation in Romania when considering the position of the Applicants."
350:
everyone that a judicial review is not another appeal, it is about the procedures that were used to come to a decision. The judge explained that an
Applicant, when seeking leave for a judicial review must produce an affidavit that specifically establishes how he/she believes the decision making procedure was wrong.
249:, however, the High Court did not allow this. The Respondents later opposed the applicants and sought two orders: to discharge the High Court's decision to allow a judicial review, and to get rid of the Applicants legal action overall as they make no proper case against the Respondent and it has no serious purpose.
406:
to give source to his statement. He explained that it would be against the
Constitution if the Court began proceedings against Romania. If this were to happen, as the judge explained, then the court would be performing a function which is meant for the Government, it would disregard the separation of
299:
The High Court then held that the
Applicants legal action should be dismissed overall as they make no proper case against the Respondent and it has no serious purpose. The Judge held that if an appeal of his decision is made to the Supreme Court, then both the Toma Adam's proceedings and the Iordache
236:
In the Toma Adam appeal, the
Applicants claimed that they came to Ireland to seek asylum as they were abused in Romania, they were oppressed of their human rights, and as a result of both of these facts, they were afraid of the same occurrences if they returned to Romania. There was no real evidence
349:
McGuinness J. then went on to talk about the affidavits of Mr
Pendred (Solicitor). The affidavits regarded the matter of different ways in which the applicants could suffer persecution in Romania. McGuinness J. felt that in this case the affidavits were stated in "very general terms". She reminded
378:
As for the Adam proceedings, the judge stated that there was nothing presented, to clearly show the individual situations of the applicants. Hardiman J., then explained that although Mr. Iordache had more specific reasons for his application, it was still quite vague. "No applicant has made out a
374:
Hardiman J., began his judgment by saying that the
Applicants did not have strong evidence, they instead are simply claiming that Romania is a place where deportation should not be allowed. These allegations were made by "Counsels advice", there was no real proof as to why deportation should be
295:
does not involve Irish domestic law and the
Minister for Justice does not need to apply such law in his actions. Also it was held that there was no proof that the deportation was in breach of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. It was lastly held that making the State to bring a case against
263:
does not involve Irish domestic law and the
Minister for Justice does not need to apply such law in his actions. Lastly, it was held that there is no proof that the Minister did not take into consideration the actions in Romania or that there was any breach of natural justice.
390:
case, the
Plaintiff showed with strong evidence that he could not be sent back to Northern Ireland. In contrast, the Applicants in this case, apart from Mr. Iordache, did not attempt to show evidence, as Hardiman J., states in his judgment.
410:
Hardiman J. concluded that this case had no proper facts, apart from Mr. Iordache's case. He found these proceedings to be "frivolous, vexatious and doomed to fail: indeed they are scarcely recognisable as legal proceedings at all."
232:
case. Toma Adam case will be referred to as "the Toma Adam proceedings" and the Florin
Iordache case will be referred to as "the Iordache proceedings". The appeals are heard together because of the High Court judgment in 2001.
360:
The judge found that the Applicants did not provide much evidence for their claims and did not put forward a strong case. For these reasons, Judge McGuinness dismissed both appeals and affirmed the orders of the High Court.
259:, held that the Court has power to analyse the decision that granted leave to seek judicial review. The Judge also held that it is wrong that all of the Applicants were put together in one case. It was then held that the
267:
In the Iordache proceedings, Florin Iordache was seeking judicial review on the basis that when he lived in Romania he suffered a lot of abuse and injustice due to his sexual orientation. Laffoy J. in the
371:
Judge Hardiman, when deciding on the conclusion of the case, looked at whether the Applicants provided a strong, reasonable case, or whether these cases are "frivolous or vexatious or doomed to fail".
335:
that there is no precise Irish authority on the matter regarding whether a High Court has the authority to dismiss an order for leave which has previously been given. However, in the case of
92:
orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.
474:
483:
European Migration Network, Migration and Asylum in Ireland: Summary of Legislation, Case Law and Policy Measure and Directory of Organisations, Researchers and Research (2005).
237:
presented of either the abuse or the breach of their human rights. The High Court granted them leave to seek judicial review. The applicants were allowed to seek two reliefs:
252:
318:
The first issue at hand is whether a High Court can clear the judgment of another judge in the High Court, which granted leave for judicial review to the Applicant.
402:, however, Hardiman J., stated, "I consider that no Court has jurisdiction to direct any such order to the executive". He also referred to Article 29.4.1 of the
291:
held: that the Court has power to analyse the decision that granted leave to seek judicial review just like in the Adam proceedings. It was held that the
425:), that all of these Applicants should not have had their cases put into one proceeding without having their situations distinguished individually.
195:
To challenge the decision of a public authority in judicial review proceedings, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.
960:
935:
910:
885:
860:
835:
810:
785:
760:
735:
710:
685:
651:
617:
583:
321:
The second issue is whether in the Toma Adam and Iordache cases, the Applicants made a strong case for judicial review proceedings.
991:
457:
292:
260:
246:
961:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
936:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
911:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
886:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
861:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
836:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
811:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
786:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
761:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
736:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
711:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
686:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
652:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
618:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
584:"Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)"
1006:
567:
68:
46:
39:
540:
482:
131:
Toma Adam and Ors. (Appellant) v The Minister for Justice Ireland and The Attorney General (Respondent)
1001:
996:
280:
for the Respondents to take into consideration the Applicants wish to stay in Ireland due to asylum,
437:
120:
85:
33:
462:
403:
109:
50:
284:
making the Respondents initiate a claim against Romania, and lastly an order to seek damages.
332:
288:
269:
256:
213:
Constitution of Ireland | Constitution | Personal Rights | Appeal | Judicial Review | Asylum
442:
422:
399:
89:
8:
245:. Applicants also wanted the Respondents to seek a case against Romania under the law of
563:
296:
Romania was bound to fail as it would go against Article 29.4.1 of the Constitution.
149:
985:
414:
Like in Judge McGuinness' conclusion, Hardiman J. also referred to the case
428:
Hardiman J. dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the High Court.
104:
447:
331:
McGuinness J. firstly agrees with the lawyers who were present in the
273:
238:
379:
credible cause that he or she has an individual fear of persecution."
418:, ex parte Turgut 1 All ER 719, to contrast with the case at hand.
452:
339:, the judge dismissed an order for leave which was granted before.
281:
277:
242:
421:
Lastly, Hardiman J. added that he also agreed with O'Donovan J. (
395:
308:
The judgments were brought by McGuinness J., and Hardiman J.
394:
Mr. Iordache was given permission to seek a case against
386:
ILRM 505, to show contract with the case at hand. In the
98:
Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
82:
Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
607:
Adams v DPP (High Court unreported 12th April 2000)
557:
541:"Consultation Paper on Judicial Review Procedure"
342:Judge McGuinness referred to the test set out in
983:
303:
416:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
355:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
287:In regards to the Iordache proceedings, the
558:Hogan, Gerard; Gwynn Morgan, David (2010).
353:Judge McGuinness contrasted this case with
103:
69:Learn how and when to remove this message
224:There are two appeals at hand here, the
32:This article includes a list of general
247:the European Convention on Human Rights
984:
84:IESC 38 is a reported decision of the
510:: 53–84. 2001 – via JustisOne.
18:
458:European Convention on Human Rights
293:European Convention on Human Rights
261:European Convention on Human Rights
88:, in which the Court, in affirming
13:
529:: 452. 2001 – via JustisOne.
326:Judgment of Mrs Justice McGuinness
185:Hardiman J, McGuinness J, Murray J
38:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
1018:
468:
272:, allowed the Applicant to seek:
545:Law Reform Commission of Ireland
521:"Adam v. Minister for Justice".
382:The judge then used the case of
23:
953:
928:
903:
878:
853:
828:
803:
778:
753:
728:
703:
678:
669:
562:. Round Hall. pp. 843–44.
502:"Adam v Minister for Justice".
300:case should be heard together.
992:Supreme Court of Ireland cases
644:
635:
610:
601:
576:
551:
533:
514:
495:
475:Link to .pdf of decision from
1:
488:
219:
304:Opinion of the Supreme Court
7:
431:
10:
1023:
523:Irish Law Reports Monthly
212:
207:
199:
194:
189:
181:
176:
168:
160:
155:
144:
136:
126:
116:
102:
97:
1007:Judicial review case law
438:Supreme Court of Ireland
203:McGuinness J, Hardiman J
121:Supreme Court of Ireland
16:Irish Supreme Court case
463:Constitution of Ireland
366:Judgment of Hardiman J.
110:Coat of arms of Ireland
53:more precise citations.
274:An Order of Certiorari
239:An Order of Certiorari
148:3 IR 53; 2 ILRM 452;
443:High Court (Ireland)
282:An Order of Mandamus
278:An Order of Mandamus
243:An Order of Mandamus
384:Finnucare v McMahon
86:Irish Supreme Court
560:Administrative Law
404:Irish Constitution
1002:2001 in Irish law
641:G v DPP 1 IR 374
477:The Irish Reports
217:
216:
79:
78:
71:
1014:
997:2001 in case law
976:
975:
973:
971:
957:
951:
950:
948:
946:
932:
926:
925:
923:
921:
907:
901:
900:
898:
896:
882:
876:
875:
873:
871:
857:
851:
850:
848:
846:
832:
826:
825:
823:
821:
807:
801:
800:
798:
796:
782:
776:
775:
773:
771:
757:
751:
750:
748:
746:
732:
726:
725:
723:
721:
707:
701:
700:
698:
696:
682:
676:
673:
667:
666:
664:
662:
648:
642:
639:
633:
632:
630:
628:
614:
608:
605:
599:
598:
596:
594:
580:
574:
573:
555:
549:
548:
537:
531:
530:
518:
512:
511:
499:
177:Court membership
107:
95:
94:
74:
67:
63:
60:
54:
49:this article by
40:inline citations
27:
26:
19:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1011:
982:
981:
980:
979:
969:
967:
959:
958:
954:
944:
942:
934:
933:
929:
919:
917:
909:
908:
904:
894:
892:
884:
883:
879:
869:
867:
859:
858:
854:
844:
842:
834:
833:
829:
819:
817:
809:
808:
804:
794:
792:
784:
783:
779:
769:
767:
759:
758:
754:
744:
742:
734:
733:
729:
719:
717:
709:
708:
704:
694:
692:
684:
683:
679:
674:
670:
660:
658:
650:
649:
645:
640:
636:
626:
624:
616:
615:
611:
606:
602:
592:
590:
582:
581:
577:
570:
556:
552:
539:
538:
534:
520:
519:
515:
501:
500:
496:
491:
471:
434:
306:
230:Florin Iordache
222:
112:
75:
64:
58:
55:
45:Please help to
44:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1020:
1010:
1009:
1004:
999:
994:
978:
977:
965:www.bailii.org
952:
940:www.bailii.org
927:
915:www.bailii.org
902:
890:www.bailii.org
877:
865:www.bailii.org
852:
840:www.bailii.org
827:
815:www.bailii.org
802:
790:www.bailii.org
777:
765:www.bailii.org
752:
740:www.bailii.org
727:
715:www.bailii.org
702:
690:www.bailii.org
677:
668:
656:www.bailii.org
643:
634:
622:www.bailii.org
609:
600:
588:www.bailii.org
575:
568:
550:
532:
513:
493:
492:
490:
487:
486:
485:
480:
470:
469:External links
467:
466:
465:
460:
455:
450:
445:
440:
433:
430:
305:
302:
221:
218:
215:
214:
210:
209:
205:
204:
201:
197:
196:
192:
191:
187:
186:
183:
182:Judges sitting
179:
178:
174:
173:
170:
166:
165:
162:
158:
157:
153:
152:
146:
142:
141:
138:
134:
133:
128:
127:Full case name
124:
123:
118:
114:
113:
108:
100:
99:
77:
76:
31:
29:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1019:
1008:
1005:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
993:
990:
989:
987:
966:
962:
956:
941:
937:
931:
916:
912:
906:
891:
887:
881:
866:
862:
856:
841:
837:
831:
816:
812:
806:
791:
787:
781:
766:
762:
756:
741:
737:
731:
716:
712:
706:
691:
687:
681:
672:
657:
653:
647:
638:
623:
619:
613:
604:
589:
585:
579:
571:
569:9781858005720
565:
561:
554:
546:
542:
536:
528:
524:
517:
509:
505:
504:Irish Reports
498:
494:
484:
481:
479:
478:
473:
472:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
435:
429:
426:
424:
419:
417:
412:
408:
405:
401:
397:
392:
389:
385:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
367:
362:
358:
356:
351:
347:
345:
340:
338:
334:
329:
328:
327:
322:
319:
316:
315:
314:
309:
301:
297:
294:
290:
285:
283:
279:
275:
271:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
248:
244:
240:
234:
231:
228:case and the
227:
211:
206:
202:
198:
193:
190:Case opinions
188:
184:
180:
175:
172:Supreme Court
171:
167:
163:
161:Appealed from
159:
154:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
129:
125:
122:
119:
115:
111:
106:
101:
96:
93:
91:
87:
83:
73:
70:
62:
52:
48:
42:
41:
35:
30:
21:
20:
968:. Retrieved
964:
955:
943:. Retrieved
939:
930:
918:. Retrieved
914:
905:
893:. Retrieved
889:
880:
868:. Retrieved
864:
855:
843:. Retrieved
839:
830:
818:. Retrieved
814:
805:
793:. Retrieved
789:
780:
768:. Retrieved
764:
755:
743:. Retrieved
739:
730:
718:. Retrieved
714:
705:
693:. Retrieved
689:
680:
671:
659:. Retrieved
655:
646:
637:
625:. Retrieved
621:
612:
603:
591:. Retrieved
587:
578:
559:
553:
544:
535:
526:
522:
516:
507:
503:
497:
476:
427:
420:
415:
413:
409:
393:
387:
383:
381:
377:
375:disallowed.
373:
370:
365:
364:
363:
359:
354:
352:
348:
343:
341:
336:
330:
325:
324:
323:
320:
317:
312:
311:
310:
307:
298:
286:
266:
253:O'Donovan J.
251:
235:
229:
225:
223:
156:Case history
140:5 April 2001
130:
81:
80:
65:
56:
37:
337:Adams v DPP
200:Decision by
169:Appealed to
59:August 2021
51:introducing
986:Categories
489:References
448:Certiorari
423:High Court
400:High Court
333:High Court
313:The Issues
289:High Court
270:High Court
257:High Court
220:Background
164:High Court
90:High Court
34:references
388:Finnucare
226:Toma Adam
675:1 IR 347
453:Mandamus
432:See also
407:powers.
208:Keywords
145:Citation
547:. 2003.
398:in the
396:Romania
344:G v DPP
255:in the
150:IESC 38
137:Decided
47:improve
566:
36:, but
970:9 May
945:9 May
920:9 May
895:9 May
870:9 May
845:9 May
820:9 May
795:9 May
770:9 May
745:9 May
720:9 May
695:9 May
661:9 May
627:9 May
593:9 May
117:Court
972:2019
947:2019
922:2019
897:2019
872:2019
847:2019
822:2019
797:2019
772:2019
747:2019
722:2019
697:2019
663:2019
629:2019
595:2019
564:ISBN
241:and
988::
963:.
938:.
913:.
888:.
863:.
838:.
813:.
788:.
763:.
738:.
713:.
688:.
654:.
620:.
586:.
543:.
525:.
506:.
276:,
974:.
949:.
924:.
899:.
874:.
849:.
824:.
799:.
774:.
749:.
724:.
699:.
665:.
631:.
597:.
572:.
527:2
508:3
72:)
66:(
61:)
57:(
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
