Lawyers representing a human rights agency have said that the State has so far neglected to address objections raised by the High Court in its recent ruling that determined the fundamental rights of homeless asylum seekers were being violated because their basic necessities were not being provided, reports Breaking News.
Senior attorney Eoin McCullough stated that he is not aware of any instance in which the State “does nothing about it” after receiving a pronouncement from the High Court against it.
2,822 applications are now awaiting an accomodation offer, according to the Department of Integration.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) filed a complaint, and Mr. McCullough informed the High Court that the circumstances of that litigation are “highly unusual,” reports Breaking News.
For this reason, rather than requesting an injunction compelling the Government to enact a system that upholds the rights of migrants, his client, IHREC, was requesting that the court take the “extremely unusual step” of reviewing its previous ruling.
Judge Barry O’Donnell stated in his August decision that there was insufficient evidence to support the necessity for an injunction of this kind and that there was no reason to believe the State would “ignore its obligations.”
Mr. McCullough stated on Friday that it “cannot be” that the State will act differently once the High Court declines to issue a mandatory order based on the assumption that it will undoubtedly carry out its obligations. He said that this would be “inconsistent with the rule of law,” reports Breaking News.
The State’s senior counsel, David Conlan Smyth, said the IHREC’s application came as a surprise and should be declined.
Mr Conlan Smyth said the situation for newly-arrived adult male asylum seekers has “improved considerably” in recent months, with the State’s International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS) able to offer accommodation to everyone who is “actively rough sleeping”.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell held against the IHREC on its application, which he said should instead be brought by way of fresh proceedings. It is not appropriate for the court to engage in a form of “rolling overview of the State’s provision for international protection applicants”, he said, reports Breaking News.
Tell us your thoughts in the Facebook post and share this with your friends.
