The objective of controversial new measures in the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill is to provide for the effective control of aliens and, in particular, an effective deportation procedure, the Supreme Court has been told. Mr Dermot Gleeson SC said the aim of the legislation was to ensure legal certainty in the immigration process.
Mr Gleeson, for the Attorney General, was yesterday making submissions in favour of the constitutionality of sections 5 and 10 of the Bill, which had been referred to the Supreme Court by the President, Mrs McAleese. Section 5 sets a 14-day limit on the entitlement of immigrants to seek judicial review of a deportation order. Section 10 provides that a person who has been served with a detention order may be detained, in specified circumstances, for up to eight weeks.
After a two-day hearing, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the court would give its decision as soon as possible.
Mr Gleeson said deportation only came at the end of a lengthy process where applicants for refugee status had the opportunity to appeal and make representations at various stages. The 14-day limit on seeking judicial review was the last stage. He said legal aid was available to those seeking judicial review. The 14-day limit on judicial review applications might be "a bit short", but it was not unconstitutional.
In relation to section 10, the Attorney General had submitted the purpose of detaining a person against whom a deportation order had been made was for the purpose of ensuring that person's deportation.
Mr Gleeson said the legal quality of liberty available to a person who was the subject of a deportation order was different to the quality of liberty available to citizens. Persons who were subject to deportation orders had no right to enter, remain, return or be at liberty here pending deportation.
Mr Michael Collins SC, who was making the case that the sections were unconstitutional, said the Attorney General's team was operating on the presumption that the Minister's decisions on applications for refugee status were always correct. The success of many applicants for judicial review told a different story.
The reasons for the 14-day limit appeared to be motivated by a desire that unsuccessful applicants for refugee status should not become "enmeshed" in Irish society. However, applicants would already have become enmeshed before reaching the judicial review stage and what harm would another few months make?
Mr Collins disagreed that immigrants had no right to be at liberty once a deportation order was made. His fundamental objection to section 10 was that it contained no provision for a periodic review of the detention on foot of a deportation order.
