Judge disqualifies himself from review

A JUDGE who refused to stop a deportation order against a Nigerian mother, who fears her two daughters are at risk of female genital mutilation (FGM), yesterday agreed to disqualify himself from hearing separate judicial review proceedings also taken by the woman following an application from her lawyers.

Mr Justice John Hedigan was yesterday due to hear the full judicial review application by the woman challenging the legal basis of the original deportation order by the minister for justice, equality and law reform.

Pamela Izevbekhai and her daughters, Naomi, 7, and Jemima, 6, had been given a reprieve against their deportation last month following the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

While Mr Justice Hedigan found there was no reason to grant an injunction stopping the deportation, on the same day the ECHR requested the Government not to proceed with it until December 10 because it said it wanted to consider the woman’s arguments, including that her two daughters face a real risk of FGM if returned to Nigeria.

The Government agreed to the request.

At the same time he was dealing with the injunction matter, Mr Justice Hedigan adjourned judicial review proceedings brought by Ms Izevbekhai in which she is challenging the minister’s refusal to consider her claim for “subsidiary protection” which would allow her to remain here.

That judicial review was due to begin yesterday when Mel Christle SC, for Ms Izevbekhai, asked Mr Justice Hedigan to disqualify himself — or “recuse” as it is legally known — from hearing the case.

Mr Christle said the application was made because his side believed the judge had pre-determined whether there was a fair question to be tried, an issue which would be raised during the judicial review.

Mr Justice Hedigan had found there was no fair question to be tried in relation to subsidiary protection.

After adjourning for a short time to consider Mr Christle’s application, Mr Justice Hedigan said that while he believed he would be able to fairly and impartially hear the judicial review, and come to a different conclusion where a case was sufficiently convincing, it was important that the applicant (Ms Izevbhkai) be “free of doubt” about the impartiality of such a hearing.

It was also important that there should be a public perception of impartiality, the judge said.

He had decided to accept the request that he recuse himself and adjourned the matter to January 20 when another judge will be available to hear the case which is expected to last two days.