Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 179: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, following the detention of a person (details supplied) at Cloverhill Prison overnight and being strip searched in front of prison officials although the person's paperwork was entirely in order and the person was merely seeking to travel to Limerick to visit relations, he has received a report on the incident; and the measures he has taken to ensure an apology has been made and an assurance that such an incident will not recur. [31683/08]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First of all it is important to set out the legal provisions that govern entry to the State of foreign nationals. Every person landing in the State, including the holder of a visa, is obliged, pursuant to the provisions of section 11 (2) of the Immigration Act, 2004, to furnish to an immigration officer such information in such manner as an immigration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the performance of his or her functions. The fact that a visa is a permission to present at the frontiers of the State but does not guarantee entry to the State was confirmed by the High Court as recently as 23rd May 2008 (Emmanuel Omatayo James & Others — V — Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform). At section 4 of the Immigration Act, 2004, provision is made for an immigration officer to authorise a non-national to land in the State. However sub-sections (3) of section 4 enumerates, at (a) to (k) fourteen circumstances in which an immigration officer, may, on behalf of the Minister, refuse to give a person a permission to land in the State. The circumstances, any one of which may give rise to a permission to land being refused, include, the fact that there is reason to believe that the non-national intends to enter the State for purposes other than those expressed by the non-national. In performing his or her functions under the Immigration Act, 2004, an immigration officer is obliged, pursuant to the provisions of the Act, to have regard to all the circumstances of the non-national concerned known to the officer or represented to the officer by him or her.

The Garda National Immigration Bureau dealt with the case of the person who is the subject of this Parliamentary Question in accordance with these provisions. In this instance, I am advised that the applicant claimed he was visiting a named person he identified first as his brother and then as a cousin — when, in fact, they are not related. This fact was established when telephone contact was made with the named person. This was a significant factor in the Immigration Officer's decision.

As regards the committal of the person concerned to Cloverhill Prison on 9 September I am informed that he was processed through Reception in line with standard practice. He would not have been in the line of sight of anyone other than prison officers searching him. He was also treated as all other committals in accordance with Irish Prison Rules. Such searching is entirely appropriate and necessary to ensure the security and safety of the prison and the health and safety of the individual concerned. In line with Standard Operational Procedures, the individual was seen on Landing D1 on the morning of 10 September as a new committal. I also understand that the records indicate that the Rules and Regulations were explained to him and a phone card application was issued. No complaints were recorded. The person concerned also received two visitors while in Cloverhill Prison and was discharged to the custody of the Garda National Immigration Bureau on the evening of 10 September 2008.

There is no doubt that the individual was very distressed by these events. However, I am satisfied that both the Immigration and Prison authorities fully complied with all the necessary legal and administrative procedures in their handling of this case. I am also satisfied that the individual was treated with courtesy and respect at all times.

Finally, may I add by way of general comment that many individuals attempt to enter the State illegally by circumventing normal immigration procedures through deception or misrepresentation. In this regard it may be of interest to note that there was a case at Dublin Airport last July in which a person purporting to be a priest and who was wearing clothing typically worn by a cleric, was refused leave to land and subsequently admitted that he was not in fact a priest. Such deception is a global phenomenal that puts an onus on immigration authorities worldwide to strike a balance between the detection of illegal movements while at the same time facilitating the efficient throughput of bona fide passengers. I am satisfied, having regard to the multitude of passengers that pass through our ports annually (25 million in Dublin Airport alone) that the Irish Immigration authorities strenuously work to achieve that balanced but effective approach.