Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 18: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the circumstances which led to the imprisonment of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32679/08]

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 159: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the circumstances which led to the imprisonment of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32818/08]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 159 together.

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 — 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. Section 4(3) enumerates fourteen (14) 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. About three thousand (3,000) persons are refused permission to enter the State at Dublin airport each year, representing 0.012% of the throughput of passengers using that airport. Clearly, therefore, the vast majority of travellers provide information and documentation to Immigration Officers, on arrival in the State, which enables those officers to conclude that the intended visitors should be permitted to enter the State.

Every effort is made by personnel at the Garda National Immigration Bureau to verify information supplied to them by persons making application for permission to enter the State. Personnel engaged in immigration control duties are tasked with detecting illegal immigration, with a view to protecting the State from terrorism and other forms of criminality, while processing millions of passengers. Every effort is made to fulfil this task in a courteous and efficient manner that causes the least possible inconvenience to everybody concerned. In the case of the person referred to by the Deputy, I am advised that the applicant seeking entry to the State claimed that he was visiting a named person that he identified first as his brother and then as a cousin. It subsequently emerged that the named person was not related to the applicant. This fact was established by the immigration officer when telephone contact was made with the named person. This was a significant factor in the Immigration Officer's decision.

The reality is 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 passengers.

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 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 into the custody of the Garda National Immigration Bureau on the evening of 10 September 2008.

While I appreciate that the person concerned may have been very distressed by these events, 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. 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.