The Legal Condition of Refugees in Ireland

Tanya Ward, Department of Geography, National University of Ireland, Cork

The primary legal instrument governing the condition of immigrants in Ireland has been the 1935 Aliens Act which replaced the 1914 Aliens Act. The origins of the 1914 Act lie with Britain, for it is almost a complete enactment of the First World War Aliens (Restrictions) Act 1914. This in turn is based on another statute, the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. The former act was drawn up by Britain in a time of emergency and when they were particularly suspicious of spies infiltrating the State. This Act was then replaced by the Aliens Act 1935. In the Dáil debates of 1935, it was argued that the 1935 Act was too strict and restrictive in its application. However, DeValera assured that the Aliens Act would not have been as restrictive as British practises and would only fully adhered to in times of emergency (Finlay, 1995). The Act provided the Minister for Justice with the power to implement new policies in relation to refusal to land, detention and deportation.

Following the implementation of the Act, domestic Irish policy concerning the presence of "aliens" was in fact extremely restrictive in its’ application, and indeed it would seem that DeValera did not keep his pledge. Dermot Keogh (1998) in Jews in the Twentieth-Century Ireland, describes the nature of the Department of Justice’s approach. He explains how the Irish state collected data on every alien that was present in the country. "The files of the Department of Justice and Irish military intelligence (G2) provide the most meticulous information on the place of residence, occupation and activities of every individual in that category. Aliens under suspicion had their mail intercepted, translated when necessary, and a photographed copy of the original kept on file,"(Keogh, 1998, p.120). This "meticulous information" has allowed Keogh (1998) to undertake a comprehensive and detailed survey of the Jewish community. When the war broke out surveillance of aliens intensified, G2 continued to be spies and the Gardi were also used to facilitate the collection of intelligence.

The legal antecedents of the Aliens Order 1975 lie with the British Immigration Act of 1971. Costello (1994) describes how when this act was going through the Commons various concerns were made known about Ireland being a soft entry point to the UK and thus, the free travel area between the UK and Ireland would have to be terminated if Ireland did not adopt similar policies to Britain in regards leave to land. Ireland’s response to such anxieties came in 1975. According to Costello (1994) "Article (2)f of the Aliens Order, 1975, permits an Aliens officer to refuse leave to land if the officer (i) is satisfied that the alien is about to make his way to the United Kingdom and (ii) would be inadmissible in the United Kingdom under the Immigration laws of that country,"(p.355). Moreover, Costello (1994) highlights two issues which he believes are of consequence. Firstly, these measures illustrate Ireland's willingness to sacrifice its sovereignty to a third party or an extrinsic force, namely Britain. Secondly, it is also represents a delegation of legislative authority.

Ireland’s first concerted effort at refugee protection was when it became a signatory to the Geneva Convention on the 29th November 1956, and to the 1967 Protocol on 6th November 1968. However, the state was prevented from ratifying it due to the Article 29.6 of the Constitution, which prevents the "reliance on unincorporated international provisions before the domestic courts,"(Clancy, 1994, intro). Thus, limiting the power of external forces with regards to domestic policy. Furthermore, the result of this was that there was no statutory instrument in Irish domestic law which obligated the State to provide protection for refugees.

Policies in Ireland soon changed due to the proliferation of immigration litigation in the 1980s and inquiries from UNHCR as to Irelands position on asylum practise and protection. The only reference to refugees in Irish domestic law was in the Irish Nationality and Citzenship Act 1986 which amends sections of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. Section 5 (g) determines the guidelines by which a refugee should be granted citizenship.

"Where the applicant is a person who is a refugee within the meaning of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of the 28th day of July, 1951, and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of the 31st day of January, 1967, or is a Stateless person within the meaning of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons of the 28th day of September, 1954."

Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice

A body of case law developed which resulted from the lack of legislation on the part of the State. One of the first momentous cases, and one that has ramifications even today, was Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice 1987. This case concerned a married couple who were Moroccan and Nigerian who had entered the State which they were permitted to do under Article 5 of the Aliens Order 1946. However, they were obliged to contact a registration officer (an immigration officer or a member of the Garda Siochana), and failed to do so with the result that they were residing illegally in the state. The Department of Justice only became aware of their presence when Lawerence Fajujonu had found employment and his perspective employer sought a work permit on Mr. Fajujonu’s behalf. Fajujonu was then informed that he and his wife were compelled to leave the State and failure to comply would result in their deportation. The Minister’s power to deport can be found in Article 13 of the Aliens Order 1946 which stresses that "the Minister may, if he deems it to be conducive to the public good so to do, make an order... requiring an alien to leave to remain thereafter out of the state." However, Fajujonu’s had two children while they were present in the State, albeit illegally. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1986 states that any child born within the 32 counties is considered an Irish citizen, therefore, the Fajujonu’s children were Irish citizens and were not forced to leave. Costello (1990) believes that a "novel approach" was taken in order to win the case. It was argued that the children (as Irish citizens) had a right to family life, thus, to have their parents resident with them in Ireland. In the High Court Barrington J. recognised that the rights of the child under Articles 40, 41 and 42, including the right to have parented within the State (Costello, 1990, p.2).

Other grounds were argued over the fact that the Minister for Justice had not proved that the Fajujonu’s presence was "not conducive to the common good". Costello (1990) maintains that the rights the parents obtained were not absolute and would be subject to article 13 if it was proved that their residency was not beneficial to the State. "The children of alien parents were found thus to enjoy a right to the company, care and parentage of their parents, subject only to the exigencies of the common good,"(Costello, 1990, p.2).

The Von Amin/1985 letter

Barcroft in 1995 contended that "the Irish Republic, along with Luxembourg, shares the very dubious privilege of being the only EU Member States which to date have had no formal legal mechanisms in place for dealing with applications for refugee status,"(p.86). Statutory instruments were only brought into force proceeding the ruling of the Justice O’Hanlon in the Fakih case (discussed below) and a letter sent to UNHCR delineating a 10 point internal administrative procedure. The letter was sent in 1985 (herein after referred to as the 1985 letter) under pressure from UNHCR as to Ireland’s procedure for applying for asylum. It provided an outline of an ad hoc ten point asylum procedure. The criterion is as follows:

1) Application for refugee status and asylum may be made by the individual to the Immigration officer on arrival or directly to the Department of Justice if the individual is already in the country.

2) Immigration officers have been provided with written guidelines which indicate clearly that a person should not be returned to a country to which he is unable or unwilling to go owing to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, nor should he be returned where his personal safety might be seriously threatened as a result of the political situation prevailing there.

3) Whenever it appears to an immigration officer as a result of a claim or information that he might be an asylum seeker, his case will be referred immediately to the Department of Justice, Dublin for decision. Immigration officers have been instructed that it is not necessary for an individual to use the term "refugee" or "asylum" in order to be an asylum-seeker. Whether or not an individual is an asylum-seeker is a matter of fact to be decided in the light of all circumstances of the particular case as well as guidelines which may be issued from time to time by the Department. In the case of doubt, the Immigration officer shall refer to the Department of Justice.

4) Such an individual will not be refused entry or removed until he has been given an opportunity to present his case fully, his application has been properly examined and a decision reached on it.

5) The asylum application will be examined by the Department in accordance with the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol on the status of refugees. This shall not preclude the taking into account of humanitarian considerations which might justify the grant of leave to remain in the state.

6) The applicant will be given the necessary facilities for submitting his case to the Department. If he is not proficient in English, the services of a competent interpreter will be made available when he is interviewed. He will be informed of the procedure to be followed, and will be given the opportunity, of which he will be informed to contact the local UNHCR Representative or a local representative of his choice. An applicant will be given this information in a language which he understands.

7) All applicants will be interviewed in person. Interviews will be conducted as far as possible, by officials of the Department who understand asylum procedures and the application of refugee criteria, and are informed on human right situations in the countries of origin. Where interviews cannot be undertaken because the asylum seeker is outside Dublin, adequate guidance will be provided by the Department to the local immigration officials to ensure that all relevant information has been obtained and forwarded to the Department.

8) In line with the supervisory role of UNHCR under the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol on the status of refugees, the Department may seek the news of UNHCR on any case prior to reaching a decision, or the UNHCR may make representations on the situation of a specific individual case or group of asylum-seekers.

9) In any case where refusal of the application is proposed or an immediate positive decision is not possible, the Department of Justice will consult will the UNHCR Representative accredited to the Republic of Ireland, before reaching a final decision and before taking steps to remove the applicant from Ireland, provided that the representative is available at the time.

10) If the applicant is recognised as a refugee, he will be informed accordingly and issued in due course with documentation certifying his refugee status and with a travel document if the needs one. If the applicant is not recognised, he will be informed, in writing, of the negative decision and the reasons for refusal."

As stated previously, this letter proved to be binding on the Minister and consequently became statutory law in view of the ruling on the Fakih and Gutrani cases. The Fakih case was comprised of three Lebanese male asylum seekers who alleged that they were declined a full hearing. It was argued that the actions of the Department of Justice was in contravention of the procedures outlined in the 1985 Letter. Clancy (1994) affirms that "O’Hanlon J., held that there was an obligation to follow fair procedures in dealing with the removal of aliens from the jurisdiction. He further held that the model procedure adopted, should have regard to the Von Amin letter.

The Gutrani v. The Minister for Justice case further cemented the 1985 letter into Irish domestic law four months after the ruling on the Fakih case. The case involved a Libyan national who alleged that he was being persecuted by Colonel Godaffi. The lawyers in the case insisted that there had been a gross violation of the administrative arrangement made with UNHCR.

Even though this letter improved the legal condition of refugees in that there was an asylum procedure that was statutory, there were still inconsistencies. Shipsey (1994) gives rise to four issues. Firstly, this administrative agreement does not have a legislative basis. Secondly, there is no right of appeal. Thirdly, it doesn't provide for legal aid. Fourthly, "it does not set out what "written guidelines" have been furnished to immigration officers to assist them in the determination procedure,"(Shipsey, 1994, p.351).

The Refugee Act 1996

The Refugee Act is the resultant of heavy lobbying on the part of NGO's and individuals in various political parties. When it was passed it was hailed as being revolutionary and one of the most progressive pieces of refugee policy in the world (Ward, 1996; Clancy, 1997). However, its formulation and enactment have been a lengthy process. Initial attempts to force a bill through the Dáil failed. For example, Alan Shatter of Fine Gael (who was in opposition) in 1993 brought up the matter only for it to be voted against by the ruling parties, Fianna Fail and Labour. In 1995, the ruling parities themselves tried to bring a bill through the Dáil but they too failed. It was not until Joan Burton, who was appointed as Junior Minister for Justice, who proved to be a driving force pushing the Refugee Bill 1995 through government. It was successfully passed in 1996.

On a positive note the Refugee Act 1996 provided, for the first time, the incorporation of the Geneva Convention and the 1967 protocol into domestic law. Nevertheless, Section 22 of the Act also ensured the incorporation of the Dublin Convention. This means that an applicant may be refused leave to land and removed from the state to another Dublin Convention signatory if they fall under the criteria delineated below:

"(1) The Minister may make such orders as appear to him or her to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Dublin Convention.

(2) Without prejudice to the generally of subsection (1), an order under this section may-

(a) specify the circumstances and procedure by reference to which an application for asylum-

(i) shall be examined in the state,

(ii) shall be transferred to a convention country for examination, or

(iii) shall be accepted for examination in the State pursuant to a request made b the convention country in which the application for asylum was first lodged,..."

The definition of a refugee within the Act specifies that asylum will be granted to those persecuted on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union. It also provides for a Refugee Applications Commissioner to make recommendations and an appeals board. The rights of quota refugees are also delineated and refugees are also granted similar rights to those of Irish citizens. All measures are progressive, but they are accompanied by other more austere asylum measures which are prevalent throughout Europe. Section 12 of the Act outlines a separate procedure (a fast track procedure) to determine those applications which "...do not show on its face any grounds for the contention that the applicant is a refugee". Applications in this separate course of determination are based on 11 principles which often result in a case been viewed as manifestly unfounded. The Irish Refugee Council asserts that this contravenes and restricts the international recognised right of asylum. "The Council argues that the use of this so called "fast track" system, does not actually speed up the process but in fact considerably complicates it. Such processes have been tried and abandoned in other jurisdictions such as Canada and criticised for being neither efficient, economic or just,"( IRC, 1997, A note on the Refugee Act 1996). The IRC goes on to state that an efficient single procedure will immediately identify those applications which are manifestly unfounded.

The Act does not provide asylum seekers with the right to work and it also gives the Minister the power to detain. The Act also neglects to make any provision for legal aid. However, obligations on the part of the Minister have been made concerning this matter and will be discussed elsewhere.

When the Act was passed it was envisaged that it would be enacted once all provisions had been made by the Department of Justice so it could carry out the procedures outlined in the Act. Then the number of applicants began rising and all government departments involved began reaching crisis point due to the fact that they were so ill-equipped. The Minister Nora Owen soon took action. On her last day in office she amended the 1935 Aliens Act in June 29th. It states the following:

"Paragraph (1) of Article 5 (inserted by the aliens (amendment) order 1975 (SI No: 128 of 1975) of the aliens order 1946 (SR & O No: 395 of 1946) is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (a).

(a) an immigration officer may examine an alien arriving in the state from Great Britain or Northern Ireland (referred to subsequently in this paragraph as "an alien for whom this paragraph applies") for the purpose of determining whether he or she should be given leave to land and the provisions of paragraph (1) to (6) and (8) of this article shell apply in the case of a person coming from a place outside the state other than Great Britain or Northern Ireland with any necessary modifications".

On the day the Aliens Act was amended, the Department of Justice called a press conference which they failed to notify the IRC of. They were only made aware of it when journalists contacted them to seek their opinion on the new measures. The reasons for this are unclear but considering that the IRC’s legal team was the only legal representation available to asylum seekers, and that the officers of that team were in constant contact with the Department of Justice throughout the earlier part of that day indicates that there may have been a concerted effort on the part of the Department of Justice to prevent the issue being addressed. UNHCR were also unaware of the amendment.

The amendment has proved to be racist in its application and successful as 600 foreign nationals were refused entry in the first 2 months of its enactment. Immigration officers and the Gardai have been used to patrol Irelands borders, train stations, airports and ports. The majority of the Gardai are frequently untrained and are simply not aware of the circumstances of a foreign national’s country of origin. It is a law which discriminates by colour and accent for they are the only means that the immigration officers have in order to discern if one is a foreign national.

Together with this new amendment Nora Owen sent a letter outlining the Departments current procedure for processing asylum applications. This too came as a surprise to UNHCR as they were not contacted while it was being conceived. The letter was sent to Hope Hanlon in the London office (referred here and after to as the Hope Hanlon letter). This letter (like the 1985 letter) was not a unilateral agreement.

To further complicate the situation a high court injunction was brought by Patrick Cooney, a retired politician and former Minister for Justice. His objection to the Act was based on the recruitment of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. This case is currently tied up in court. The offshoot of this action has prevented the Minister from implementing the Refugee Act in full as he is not in a position to appoint a Refugee Applications Commissioner. This position is central to the entire Act as the remaining sections of it can not be implemented.

The Minister has implemented 5 sections of the Act, 1,2,5,22 and 25. Section 5 protects refugees against refoulement it is as follows:

"5.-(1) A person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where, in the opinion of the Minister, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."

Asylum Division

Up until two years ago the governmental body responsible for the processing of asylum applications was the Asylum section which was a component of the Immigration and Citizenship Division. It comprised of three civil servants working on a part-time basis. The poor staffing of this section resulted in a backlog of cases mounting. Due to the rising number of applicants and pressure from NGO's the government recognised the need to restructure. Thus, the Asylum Division came into being in late 1996.

The Asylum division is divided into two subdivisions; the policy section and the task force. The former is bound with the role of framing policy. It is currently engaged in numerous comparative research projects with the view of modifying the Refugee Act. The latter consists of 5 sub-sections: Reception; Dublin Convention; Processing; Appeals and General Administration. It has been in operation for 3 months and is charged with the responsibility of reducing the back log.

The Asylum Division is the only sector of the civil service that is undergoing expansion and as such the Minister was granted permission to recruit an additional 72 members of staff. This brings the total number of individuals working in the Asylum Division to 80. They are all civil servants and come from a wide range of backgrounds. There are a number of staff who are retired civil servants who are contracted to work on a temporary basis. This would seem to suggest two things, either the Department is striving for a cost effective policy or that it does not envisage the number of applicants continuing at the same level.

The Procedure for Seeking Asylum

The asylum procedure begins at the airport, port or border when the applicant makes the initial contact with an immigration officer. At this point the officer must assess if the person requesting asylum is indeed eligible to be granted leave to land. Section 3 of the Hope Hanlon letter outlines the criteria for admissibility by which the immigration officer must adhere to.

"Whenever it appears to an immigration officer as a result of a claim or information given by an individual that he or she might be an asylum-seeker, the following initial procedure will apply. The immigration officer will interview the person with the purpose of eliciting sufficient information for the officer of the Department appointed under section 22(4)(a) of the Refugee Act 1996 to decide if the application should be dealt with in the State or otherwise (currently the Dublin Convention (Implementation) Order 1997 (S.I. No. 360 of 1997) applies in this regard)."

In some cases the applicant may be within the state and in this instance he or she is required to make their application directly to the Asylum Division, or if outside Dublin to any Garda station.

The applicant must meet a number of requirements when they apply for asylum: they must submit all their documents in order to establish their identity; they must provide reasons for their flight and the path or route they took. Their photos are taken and then they must make their way to the Refugee Unit to facilitate of reception measures that are available to them. (The reception procedures will be alluded to in the following chapter.) The applicant is then impelled to register with the Aliens Registration Office (Garda station), a practise that must continue for the duration of their status as an asylum seeker once a week.

Admissibility

At this stage the task force determine whether the claim should be entertained and admitted into the procedure. Section 5 of the letter states the grounds for inadmissibility:

"• it is determined that the individual is not fact seeking asylum in the State, or

• a final decision has been made under the Dublin Convention (Implementation) Order that the application should be dealt with in another Convention country, or

• it is decided that the application is manifestly unfounded, or

• the application has been deemed to be abandoned, or

• the application has been examined substantively in the State and a final decision reached on it."

Legal aid is not and will not be provided for this stage of the asylum procedure.

The Interview

If the state is satisfied that the applicant should not be removed from the state in the preliminary stage, their case will be given substantive consideration. The applicant is required to attend an interview in order to assess their claim. They are notified beforehand and are permitted to bring a friend to accompany them, although this person is not authorised to injector for the duration of the interview. In preparation the interviewer researches the situation of the country of origin of the applicant in order to draw from their knowledge in the interview and to ascertain the validity of the applicants' claim. The interview may last for a number of hours and when it is completed the interviewer compiles a report. The applicant can make written submissions to substantiate their claims. However, they must be submitted within 5 working days proceeding their interview.

Determination Procedure

The determination procedure has changed with the increasing number of applicants. Formerly, each case was sent the regional branch of UNHCR in London who made recommendations to the Department of Justice. An official in the Asylum Division stated in an interview that the Asylum section never contravened any recommendations made by UNHCR. The Department of Foreign Affairs also made recommendations asylum cases. However, the grounds for which they make their decision are far from clear but it is possible to conjecture. Foreign Affairs may be qualified to verify certain conditions and events in countries of origin. More importantly they estimate the ramifications of granting asylum to an applicant against the interests (economic or otherwise) of the State. As stated previously, refugees are pawns in a global system and when a state grants asylum to an individual they are automatically condemning the applicants country of origin. Overall the final decision attributable to the Minister.

This method of substantive consideration was no longer viable due to the increase in numbers and the inability of the London office to make further determinations. The procedure for determination has changed somewhat. The Minister appoints an officer to assess the asylum claim. The Appointed officer then makes use of the documentation centre in the examination procedure. The author presumes that the Department of Foreign Affairs will play some role but UNHCR's intervention has altered. Instead of them making the preliminary recommendation they will now make "observations" and give advice on asylum cases and are permitted to do so at various stages of the asylum procedure. However, it is clear that UNHCR’s role has diluted in the asylum procedure.

Decisions

Applicants are notified by registered post of the decision on their case. If it is deemed that the individual fits into the Geneva Convention definition, they will be granted refugee status. If they receive a negative decision, they are free to appeal it, but must do it within 14 days. The Minister may also see fit to grant them temporary leave to remain. Section 22 of the Hope Hanlon (as amended) letter states:

"The above procedures offer to applicants who do not come within the definition of "refugee" contained in section 2 of the Refugee Act 1996 sufficient opportunities to make submissions to the Minister as to whether there are special reasons why leave should be granted to them to remain temporarily in the state. A decision in any such case remains at the absolute discretion of the Minister."

The Hope Hanlon (as amended) letter stipulates the grounds on which a case may be "manifestly unfounded". No. 14 reads as follows:

(a) it does not show on its face any grounds for the contention that the applicant is a refugee,

(b) the applicant gave clearly insufficient details or evidence to substantiate the application,

(c) the applicant's reason for leaving or not returning to his or her country of nationality does not relate to a fear of persecution,

(d) the applicant did not reveal, following the making of the application, that he or she was travelling under a false identity or was in possession of false or forged identity documents and did not have reasonable cause for not so revealing,

(e) the applicant, without reasonable cause, made deliberately false or misleading representations of a material or substantial nature in relation to the application,

(f) the applicant, without reasonable cause and in bad faith, destroyed identity documents, withheld relevant information or otherwise deliberately obstructed the investigation of the application,

(g) the applicant deliberately failed to reveal that he or she lodged a prior application for asylum in another country,

(h) the applicant submitted the application for the sole purpose of avoiding removal from the State,

(I) the applicant has already made an application for a declaration or an application for recognition as a refugee in a state party to the Geneva Convention, and the application was properly considered and rejected and the applicant has failed to show a material change of circumstances,

(j) the applicant is a national of or has a right of residence in a state party to the Geneva Convention in respect of which the applicant."

The Appeals Authority for manifestly unfounded cases (a person with no less than 7 years practice as a solicitor or barrister appointed by the Minister for this purpose) will make a determination based only on papers. The Appeals Authority will make recommendations to the Minister and an authorised officer of the Department will make the final decision. If the case is considered manifestly unfounded, the person will be removed from the state. If the appeal is decided in favour of the applicant, the application is returned to the first stage of the substantive consideration procedure.

Recognition Rates

From table 1 it is apparent that the number of people granted asylum have be quite high in comparison with other European countries, namely Norway. In 1994 4 people were granted refugee status, this rose to 33 in 1996 and has peaked at 208 in 1997. Given that the Minister for Justice is constantly stating to the media and press that 90% of asylum seekers are "bogus" the figures would seem to contradict the Ministers assertions. However, when this matter was raised with a senior official in the Departmetn of Justice, that individual indicated that the high rate of positive decisions was attributable to the fact that a larger number of applicants in previous years have been genuine. However, the newly arrived applicants were not genuine and are in fact illegal immigrants wishing to circumvent Ireland’s immigration laws. It was also emphasised that the numbers of applicants rose once Britain reduced its’ benefit payments to asylum seekers in that country. The official affirmed that our Ireland’s generous payments had acted as an incentive to apply for asylum here.

The appeals process that is in place is an interim measure. The Appeals Authority has at least ten years experience as a solicitor or a barrister. He/she make their decision based on all the material available and any new submissions. These submissions may include relevant information that may substantiate the appellants’ claim, or address the inadequacies or mistakes made in the determinations procedure. UNHCR may also interject at this point of behalf of the applicant. The Appeals Authority then make their recommendations to the Minister. The applicant is then notified of their final decision. Thus, they may be given leave to remain, refugee status or a refusal in which case they must leave the state.

Table 2 illustrates the number of applicants at each stage of the procedure. It is evident that the number of applicants at the appeal stage is quite low given that the Department have yet to process the vast bulk of the asylum applicants from 1997 and 1998. The number of outstanding cases in the earlier part of this year was 4,325.

One Stop Shop

In response to the uncoordinated nature of the entire asylum procedure it was decided to establish a "one stop shop" in Timberley House, on Upper Mount street in Dublin. It provides asylum seekers with all the relevant services under one roof, this includes the Refugee Applications Centre, the Refugee Unit (social welfare), UNHCR, the new documentation service and the new legal aid scheme (to open in February of 1999). This new system has eliminated the vast amount of travelling that is required in the initial stages of the procedure. For example, before the "one stop shop" a new arrival had to make their way to the Department of Justice in Stephen’s Green, the Refugee Unit in the St. James Hospital, the Irish Refugee Council and then finally on to their emergency accommodation. Given that a vast number of applicants do not speak English and minority are suffering trauma and are disorientated, many have found this journey to be stressful. Moreover, the distance between the two government department means that it has had a negative effect on administration.

Legal Aid

Asylum seekers have had to rely on the willingness of solicitors to act on a pro-bono basis at all stages of the procedure. In 1994 the IRC operated a modest legal project which provided asylum seekers with advice and conducted country of origin research. It was originally funded by UNHCR for the first year, subsequently, the Department of Justice agreed to fund it. However, it has since come to a close due to the unwillingness of the Department of Justice to provide extra funds for the project to deal adequately with its increased case load. In August on 1997 the Department agreed to make a legal payment of £120 a case for appeals. According to Clancy (1997) this was the first acknowledgement of the right of asylum seekers to legal aid. Moreover, Clancy (1997) argues that many solicitors have found this to be inoperable, particularly in light of the comprehensive attendance and research facilities required. Since the Refugee Act 1996 does not make provision for legal aid it would seem that the situation has deteriorated. Nonetheless, the situation is soon to change. The IRC currently have a Legal Unit which is comprised of eight employees and volunteers. Basically it provides the similar legal advice as the previous Legal Project, although it does not prepare submissions for cases.

The Minister for Justice has made a commitment to provide legal aid but not at all stages of the procedure. It will only be provided where a case is being given substantive consideration. The nature of the legal aid scheme is far from clear. Initially, the Minister received three tenders for but failed to choose either option. It has since been decided that the Legal Aid Board will provide legal representation specifically for asylum seekers. This service is due to open on February 22, 1999. It must be stated that one would question the experience these lawyers have with immigration law. This option was obviously chosen b the Minister because it is the most cost effective. If the Minister was to base his choice of the best means of protection and legal representation, he would have picked someone from the pool of solicitors in Ireland who are already experienced in this area.

It is likely that if this legal aid service is effective, that the case-load of the IRC’s legal unit will be significantly reduced (although they will continue to deal with manifestly unfounded cases). According to Catherine Kenny, the Co-ordinator, they will shift their focus to campaigning, research and documentation.

References

Clancy, Deirdre. 1994 Protection for the Refugee in Ireland: A Progressive Human Rights Approach, unpublished thesis, Faculty of Law, TCD.

Clancy, Deirdre. 1997 "Safeguarding Refugee Rights" in Focus on Ireland and theWider Issues ‘97-’98. Comhlamh, pp.6-7.

Collins, Adrienne. 1997 "Is Ireland Meeting its International Obligations towards Refugees?", Trócaire Development Review, Dublin, pp.93-114.

Costello, Kevin. 1990 "The Irish Deportation Power", in Dublin University Law Journal, vol.12, pp.81-92.

Costello, Kevin. 1994 "Some Issues in the control of Immigration in Irish Law" in Heffernan, Liz. (ed) Human Rights in A European Perspective, Round Hall Press, Dublin.

Cullen, Paul. 1997 "The 1997 Border campaign Refugees, Asylum and Race on the Borders" in Crowley, Ethel & Mac Laughlin, Jim (ed.) in UnderBelly of the Tiger, Irish Reporter Publications, Dublin.

Finlay, Peter. 1995 "Immigration and Citizenship Law- Need for Reform", Law Society of Ireland Gazette, vol. 89 , no.9.

Keogh, Dermot. 1998 Twentieth-Century Ireland: Refugees, Anti Semitism and the Holocaust, Cork University Press.

Murphy, Tim. 1997 "Immigrants and Refugees The Irish Legal Contact" in Crowley, Ethel & MacLaughlin, Jim (ed.) Under the Belly of the Tiger, Irish Reporter Publications, Dublin.

Shipsey, Bill. 1994 "Immigration Law and Refugees", in Heffernan, Liz (ed) Human Rights and European Perspective, Round Hall Press, Dublin.

Ward, Eilís. 1996 "A big show-off to show what we could do- Ireland and the Hungarian Crisis of 1956", Irish Studies in International Affairs, Vol. 7, pp. 131-141.

Dublin Convention

Decisions

Asylum Seekers 1992-1998