A NIGERIAN woman, who won an important Supreme Court judgment last month with wider implications for asylum seekers and other cases relating to fundamental rights, has been awarded substantial costs against the State of the final stage of her legal battle to avoid deportation.
It emerged yesterday that the Minister for Justice had last June revoked the deportation order made in 2002 by former minister for justice Michael McDowell against Abosede Oluwatoyin Meadows, but she was not made aware of that until very recently.
Ms Meadows (27) was unable to pursue a career in nursing because she was refused refugee status. She later initiated a legal challenge to the deportation order made against her.
It emerged yesterday the revocation of that deportation order was made after the Supreme Court had heard Ms Meadows’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant her leave to bring a judicial review challenge to the deportation order, but before the court delivered its judgment.
That appeal was heard in November 2008 and in early 2009. In a 3-2 judgment last month, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court refusal and granted leave for judicial review.
However, given the revocation in the interim of the deportation order, the proceedings have now ended. Gerard Hogan SC, for Ms Meadows, yesterday sought costs in the High Court and the Supreme Court actions against the Attorney General.
Maurice Collins, for the Attorney General, asked the court to make no order for costs, meaning each side would pay its own costs. Ms Meadows had not succeeded in persuading the court to overturn the standard test for judicial review and apply instead the “anxious scrutiny” test, he said.
Chief Justice Mr Justice John Murray said the court was satisfied it should not depart from the normal rule whereby costs were awarded to the winning party and the court would award costs in both courts to Ms Meadows.
Earlier, the Chief Justice, said what had happened was “regrettable”.
In its majority judgment last month, the Supreme Court clarified the criteria for judicial review of administrative decisions affecting constitutional rights.
The majority decision of Mr Justice Murray, Mrs Justice Susan Denham and Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, provides that the courts, when assessing the reasonableness of administrative decisions in cases affecting fundamental rights, are entitled to consider the proportionality of the decision.
Mr Justice Fennelly said the court was not altering the existing test for judicial review, which provides that an administrative decision can only be set aside if shown to be unreasonable and against common sense.
The majority court was saying the principle of “proportionality” could provide “a sufficient and more consistent standard of review”, he said.
The dissenting judges, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman and Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, suggested the majority ruling would mean virtually every failed asylum seeker would bring a legal challenge.
In her action, Ms Meadows had claimed that if she was deported, she would be forced into an arranged marriage and subjected to female genital mutilation. Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1995 prohibits “refoulement” or return to a state of a person if the Minister believed their life or freedom would be threatened and they could be subject to a serious assault.
The Supreme Court had granted leave for judicial review on grounds that the Minister’s decision did not properly address the refoulement issues.
