E.A. v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, originally from Nigeria, claims to have been a victim of sex trafficking, having been trafficked from her home country to Ireland via the UK, entering the State in May 2022. She applied for international protection in June 2022. After an adverse decision at first instance, the Applicant appealed to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT), which affirmed the initial ruling on 18 December 2023. The Applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 19 February 2024, seeking to quash the IPAT decision on grounds that its credibility assessment was flawed and requesting a fresh hearing.

The Respondents opposed the application, filing opposition papers in May 2024, including an affidavit by an official in the Minister's Immigration Delivery Service detailing the State's approach to human trafficking victims. This affidavit indicated a binary legal framework whereby a non-national claiming to be a trafficking victim without permission to remain may either apply for international protection or liaise with the Human Trafficking Investigation and Coordination Unit of An Garda Síochána, as only one legal basis for leave to remain is recognized.

The Applicant sought to amend the statement of grounds approximately 11 months after the grant of leave, by notice of motion dated 1 November 2024. The amendments introduced a new relief—a declaration that exclusion of asylum applicants from victim identification is unlawful—and two additional legal grounds challenging the IPAT's dismissal of evidence from a Government-funded body specializing in trafficking victims and the alleged unlawfulness of the National Referral Mechanism’s treatment of asylum applicants as excluded from trafficking victim status.

The Applicant attributed the delay in raising these points to an error by counsel, only identified upon instruction of senior counsel and in light of the Respondents' opposition papers.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be permitted to amend the statement of grounds in judicial review proceedings to include new legal points and a new relief.
2. Whether the exclusion of asylum applicants from being identified as trafficking victims is lawful under Directive 2011/36/EU and/or Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
3. Whether the IPAT erred in dismissing evidence from a Government-funded body with expertise in identifying trafficking victims.
4. Whether the State’s National Referral Mechanism unlawfully prevents asylum applicants from being formally identified as trafficking victims and thereby denies them associated rights and protections.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the IPAT improperly dismissed evidence from Ruhama, a Government-funded body with expertise in trafficking victim identification, without considering the indicators of trafficking identified by that body.
• The Applicant argued that the National Referral Mechanism's treatment of asylum applicants as excluded from victim identification is unlawful under Directive 2011/36/EU and/or Article 4 ECHR, as it denies victims the rights and protections to which they are entitled, including recovery and reflection periods.
• The Applicant sought to introduce a declaration that such exclusion is unlawful and contrary to European legal standards.
• The Applicant acknowledged that the delay in seeking amendment was due to error by counsel and submitted this explanation as satisfactory.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents opposed the amendment application, standing over the IPAT process and denying entitlement to the relief claimed.
• They contended that the points sought to be added were unlikely to succeed on the facts of the case.
• The Respondents identified logistical prejudice from the amendment, including the need to amend pleadings, adduce further evidence, and increased costs, but did not assert any unfairness beyond these logistical considerations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
P. v. Chief Superintendent of the GNIB and others [2015] 2 ILRM 1	Substantive criticism of administrative arrangements for victims of human trafficking.	The Applicant relied on this precedent to criticize the State’s administrative arrangements, which were exhibited in the Respondents’ affidavit.
N.Z. and Others v. Minister for Justice [2023] IEHC 545	Criteria for permitting amendments to pleadings in judicial review proceedings.	The Court applied the criteria outlined in this case, including that amendments are permitted if the new points are arguable, have adequate explanation for delay, and do not cause unfair prejudice.
B.W. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal (No.1) [2015] IEHC 725	Framework for assessing amendments in judicial review.	Referenced as part of the legal criteria for allowing amendments.
Keegan v. Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission [2012] 2 IR 580	Acceptance of inadvertence or error by counsel as valid explanation for delay in pleading amendments.	The Court accepted the Applicant’s explanation of counsel error based on this precedent.
Habte v. Minister for Justice [2019] IEHC 47	Summary of principles governing amendments in judicial review cases.	The Court took into account the sixteen principles outlined by Humphreys J. in assessing the amendment application.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court applied established criteria for permitting amendments to judicial review pleadings, as set out in relevant case law. It found that the new points raised by the Applicant were substantial and arguable, and that had they been raised initially, leave to pursue them would have been granted despite the higher threshold under the International Protection Act 2015.

The Court accepted the Applicant’s explanation for the delay—counsel error—as a valid reason under precedent. It acknowledged that while the Respondents would suffer logistical prejudice, including increased costs and the need to amend pleadings, there was no evidence of unfair or irremediable prejudice.

Balancing these factors, the Court concluded that refusal to permit the amendment would risk injustice to the Applicant. The Court also provisionally considered that the Respondents should be entitled to costs of the amendment application, but that any costs order should be stayed pending the final determination of the proceedings.

The matter was scheduled for further argument to consider costs and directions for consequential pleadings.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted the application to amend the statement of grounds in the judicial review proceedings.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant may now pursue the new points and relief in the judicial review, potentially broadening the scope of the case to include challenges to the State’s treatment of asylum applicants as excluded from trafficking victim identification. No new precedent was established by this ruling; rather, the Court applied existing principles to allow the amendment. The Respondents will be required to address the additional grounds and relief, with attendant procedural and cost implications.