Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 160: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if an Internet site (details supplied) is being used as a source or reference when making decision on asylum applications. [14302/09]

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

Under the Refugee Act 1996, two independent statutory offices were established to consider applications and appeals in respect of refugee status and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted. These offices are the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

I am informed by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the guidelines for staff dealing with the investigation of applications for asylum regarding the use of Wikipedia are that it should not be used as a primary or reliable information source and the information available on Wikipedia cannot be relied upon.

I am informed by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal that Members of the Tribunal take account of best international practice and the jurisprudence of the High Court when assessing country of origin information and that Members have been advised that Wikipedia should not be used as a primary or reliable source of country of origin information. In this regard the Deputy should be aware that an appellant is entitled to provide to the Tribunal any country of origin information he/she so wishes to support his/her own case and the Tribunal must consider it.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 161: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action to be taken on admitted fraud and leaking of documents surrounding the asylum appeal case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14303/09]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 162: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the details of an investigation into documents related to an appeal for asylum by a person (details supplied) were selectively disclosed to two media outlets, while their case was still in the legal process, creating trial by media; the person who was responsible for briefing these two newspapers; and the person who authorised them to do so. [14304/09]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 163: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the cost of investigating an appeal for asylum by a person (details supplied) by sending a senior detective and a representative of the Irish embassy to Nigeria; if it was in the region of the €10,000 reported recently; if it was fully accounted for; and if that cost included the pursuit of documents to support the State's case against the person's appeal. [14305/09]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 164: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason it has taken his Department more than three years to fully investigate an asylum application by a person (details supplied); and if it is coincidence that the renewed investigations seem to have begun following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to hear the person's case. [14306/09]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 161 to 164, inclusive, together.

The persons to whom the Deputy refers are failed asylum seekers. This applicant and her daughters applied for asylum on 21 January 2005. Following a full and detailed consideration of their applications by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and an unsuccessful appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, they were refused declarations of refugee status on 2 September 2005. Following a full and detailed examination of her and her daughters' files, pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 and section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996, Deportation Orders were signed in respect of the applicant and her daughters on 23 November 2005.

The Refugee Act, 1996 (Section 19) makes provision for the protection of the identity of asylum seekers throughout the period during which the asylum application is being investigated. Under this particular provision, the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and their respective officers must take all practicable steps to ensure that the identity of asylum applicants is kept confidential.

This clearly prevents any enquiries or investigations being made in the country of origin of asylum applicants. The legislation also states that no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as an applicant under the Act can be published without the consent of the person.

The validity of the Deportation Orders was challenged by way of judicial review. Following a full hearing in the High Court, Mr. Justice Feeney refused all relief sought and upheld the validity of the Deportation Orders.

The applicant and her daughters made an application pursuant to Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, S.I no. 518 of 2006, requesting my predecessor to exercise discretion to accept and consider an application for subsidiary protection applications from them. This application was refused. The applicant then challenged by way of judicial review the decision of my predecessor to refuse to exercise discretion under Regulation 4(2) of the European Communities (eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006, S.I no. 518 of 2006.

Following a full hearing in the High Court, all reliefs sought were refused by Mr. Justice McGovern and the validity of the decision was upheld. The applicant has appealed the judgement of Mr. Justice McGovern to the Supreme Court.

The applicants lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of the Court. The applicants sought a declaration that their rights under Articles 3, 6, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.

The total costs of the enquiry referred to by the Deputy are subject to the normal civil service travel and subsistence rates and have not yet been fully invoiced.

As the other matters raised are either sub judice or speculative, I do not propose to comment any further.