Neutral Citation No: [2005] IEHC 308
This is a judgment supplemental to the judgment already delivered on 15 th July, 2005.
The parties applied to the court on 26 th July in relation to the issue as to whether the court had considered the supplemental affidavit of Mr. K dated 11 th March, 2005. The judgment, at p. 4, refers to the affidavit (in singular) of the applicant and at p. 19, says that the affidavit of the applicant sworn on 24 th January, 2005 refers to the asylum process. The judgment then refers to the applicant's solicitor seeking reports pursuant to s. 3 of the 1999 Act and s. 5 of the 1996 Act, saying that the applicant would swear a further affidavit on receipt of the requested reports made pursuant to s. 11(7) and s. 13(1) of the 1999 Act.
The court acknowledges that the applicant did, indeed, swear a supplemental affidavit. However, that supplemental affidavit was limited to a consideration of the reports which were, in fact, given to the applicant subsequent to the solicitor's request.
No new facts were referred to in the affidavit. It seems clear that the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and, indeed, the Minister in making the deportation order, had the file which contained the said reports.
In fact, the court had considered the supplemental affidavit dated 11 th March, 2005, though did not refer to the affidavits in the plural. Moreover, it appears to the court, that the decision of the court in relation to the judicial review is not affected by that supplemental affidavit.
For the purpose of clarity the court declares that, having considered the affidavit and the exhibits therein that the burden of proof was not discharged by the applicant and, accordingly, the court confirms the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review.
Approved: Murphy J.