THE HIGH COURT
(Judicial Review)
							Record No. 679JR/2000
BETWEEN
O D
								APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
								RESPONDENT
Judgment of Mr. Justice T.C. Smyth delivered the 29th day of November 2001

	The Applicant is a Nigerian national whose date of birth has been given in the documentation as of 14th August 1965.  The following chronology of events is indicative of the course of the application made for asylum in this country.

28-6-98:		Departed Lagos
29-6-98:		Arrived in Ireland via Germany
30-6-98:		Given form of questionnaire
 3-7-98:		Questionnaire form signed
14-7-98:		Apprehended at Holyhead and returned to Ireland.
15-7-98:		Attended for interview
20-7-98:	Assessment and recommendation for refugee status signed by one Florrie Martin
1-9-98:		Martin O’Mahony’s report and recommendation
26-11-98:	Martin O’Mahony’s letter to Applicant advising of “decision” on refugee status and advising of appeal entitlements.
14-10-99:	Letter of Wendy Murray to Applicant indicating Minister’s proposal to make a Deportation Order.
18-11-99:		Consideration of deportation notification signed by Deirdre Ginley.
28-1-00:		Deportation Order directed to O D
10-11-00:		Letter of Notification of Deportation Order
		-	Make arrangements on 12th November 2000 re deportation
-	Deportation arrangements will be put in place to effect your deportation not later than Thursday, 7th December 2000 (Applicant arrested on 12th November 2000)
22-11-00:	Proceedings lodged in Central Office therefore no issue as to time arises.
	All the foregoing documentation is in the name of Olagbenro D.  It appears that a further application was made for asylum in the name of Olaniji D. on the 15th September 1999 when an application form was given to him on his arrival in Dublin via Paris and this form was completed on the 23rd September 1999 and contained a number of discrepancies even on a range of historical data from the other application forms signed.
SUBMISSIONS
1.	The Applicant 
	(a)	The instant case was not covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in P. L. and B.
		Letter of notification of the 10th November 2000 is defective because it refers to -
			“.. including the representations received on your behalf.”
	(c)	Neither the Deportation Order or the Letter of Notice taken separately or in conjunction  inform the Applicant with certainty of the date upon which he will be deported and accordingly there has been a failure by the Respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 3(1) and Section 3(9) of the Immigration Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999).
2.	The Respondent
	(a)	The statutory requirements have been met in the terms of the Deportation Order and Letter of Notice
	(b)	The information supplied by the application and interview is and are representations as to the facts that were proffered by the Applicant
	(c)	The decision of the Supreme Court in P. L. and B. covers the case
DECISION
	I am satisfied and find as a fact and as a matter of law that -
	A.	The expression representations in the Letter of Notice is not used as a term of art and while often or indeed nearly always referable to representations made under Section 3 of the Act of 1999 seeking “leave to remain on humanitarian grounds” but is not so limited.  The expression is sufficiently wide to include the information given in the questionnaire and at interview.  The application form for refugee status which faces the questionnaire expressly states:-

	“Your application for refugee status will be considered on the basis of the information supplied in this form, during the subsequent interview and in any other submissions you may make to us.”
I hold that the use of the expression “including the representations received on your behalf” does not invalidate the Letter of Notice because there was no other representations other than in the questionnaire and interview notes.
	B.	Section 3(1) of the Act of 1999 enables or empowers the Minister, subject to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1999 and the subsequent provisions of Section 3 thereof to make a Deportation Order to require a non-national, specified in the order, to leave the State within such period (not on a specific day or date) as may be specified in the order and to remain thereafter (i.e. after such period) out of the State.  The amendment by extension by S. 10 (a) (i) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 does not displace this provision.
		Sub-section 9(a) of Section 3 is amended by substitution by S. 10 (a) (ii) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 and provides that the notice (under sub-section (3)(b)(ii)) may require the person concerned to do any one or more of the things specified in the subsection notice for the purpose of his or her deportation from the State.  
		The decision of the Supreme Court in P. L. and B. is to the effect that the documents must be taken in conjunction.  The person to be deported must be treated like a human being and arrangements invariably require to be made - unless the concerned person leaves voluntarily - the presentation at a particular place and at a particular time is to make arrangements for the purposes of his or her deportation.  The period within which the Applicant is to leave the State is provided for in Section 3(1) in the instant case is the period 12th November 2000 to 7th December 2000.
	C.	There is no “inadequacy, technical or otherwise, in either the letter or the order or in both of them taken together” to adopt the decision of the Supreme Court in P. L. and B. .v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Anor. (unreported 30/7/2001). in the instant case
RESULT:
	There being no substantial grounds for contending that the decision challenged is invalid and for the reasons set out in my decision the application is dismissed.