The State has so far failed to address points made by the High Court in its recent judgement that found homeless asylum seekers’ fundamental rights were being breached because their basic needs were not being met, lawyers for a human rights body have said.
Senior barrister Eoin McCullough said he has never heard of a case where the State receives a High Court declaration against it and then “does nothing about it”.
The Department of Integration says 2,822 applicants are currently awaiting an accommodation offer.
Mr McCullough told the High Court that the circumstances of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission’s (IHREC’s) lawsuit are “highly unusual”.
This is why his client (IHREC) was asking the court to take the “highly unusual step” of revisiting its earlier decision to stop short of making an order forcing the Government to introduce a system that vindicates the migrants’ rights.
In his August ruling, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell said there was no evidence such an order was needed as there was no basis for concluding the State would “ignore its obligations”.
On Friday, Mr McCullough said it “cannot be” that the High Court refrains from making a mandatory order on the premise that the State will surely comply with its duties, only for the State to do otherwise. This would be “inconsistent with the rule of law”, he said.
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.
He made final orders in the case, including formally declaring that the state’s response to the needs of unaccommodated asylum seekers breaches the men’s right to human dignity as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Since early 2023, the State has twice announced it could not provide shelter to all newly arrived men amid “unprecedented pressure” on services. Children, families and women are prioritised, along with vulnerable men.
IHREC’s case, heard last May, followed on from a High Court decision of April 2023, which found the state breached its obligations to accommodate an Afghan asylum seeker.
His rights were breached, the court also held, saying a €28 voucher and the addresses of private charities in lieu of accommodation did “not come close to what is required” by the European Union (Reception Conditions) Regulations of 2018.
The State responded by adding €75 to the weekly expenses payment to unaccommodated asylum seekers and made formal arrangements with charities to provide food and hygiene facilities.
IHREC’s challenge successfully contended the new €113.80 weekly allowance was still insufficient as it did not enable the men to source alternative shelter. The State argued its enhanced provisions brought it into line.
On Friday, Mr McCullough, appearing with Patricia Brazil SC, said a recent letter from the Department of Integration gave “no suggestion” that the State intends to alter the financial allowance.
The Department’s letter makes clear that the only issue addressed since the judgement is the issue of street homelessness, said Mr McCullough. However, the court has held it is unreasonable to presume others the State failed to house are accommodated, he said.
In its letter to the IHREC, the Department says it has contracted a nightly outreach team to locate rough sleeping international protection applicants in Dublin. The team has referred 650 such men to the accommodation service since early June, the letter says.
