The Supreme Court issued a privileged writ of habeas corpus for the immediate release of a woman from the Mennoya Police Detention Centre, where she was being held for deportation purposes, disagreeing with the Attorney General's objection to her request.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, called upon to consider the legality of the applicant's detention for deportation purposes, held that the application was justified, expressing disagreement with some of the grounds on which the Attorney General had based his objection to the woman's application for dismissal.
Among the grounds of objection was the fact that last May, the applicant was designated as a prohibited immigrant and an order was issued for her detention and deportation, but she repeatedly refused to be repatriated. It is reported that after a police escort to deport the petitioner was approved last June by the Department of Population and Immigration Records, in three evaluations between August and December, it was decided to continue detaining the petitioner, and despite efforts to repatriate her, she was uncooperative.
The Court states that one of the reasons why the petitioner said her detention was unlawful is that there was not any review of the duration of her detention in accordance with the provisions of section 18PST (4) of the Aliens and Immigration Act, Cap. 105, as amended. As is well known, it is added in the judgment, detention is not permitted except for the periods and under the specific conditions referred to in the said section.
The said section provides that a detention order shall be issued by the Secretary of the Interior, who in exercising the powers vested in him by law shall authorize the then Director of the Department of Population and Immigration, and/or whoever may be appointed and/or designated as Deputy Director (AD), to exercise such powers as he may have, including the powers to which reference is made in this section.
The Court, in considering whether the AD of the Department of Population and Immigration had issued the petitioner's last Further Detention Order in accordance with the provisions of the Act, held that on the evidence before it, "it does not disclose its own decision concerning an extension of detention."
It is stated that on the petitioner's last Detention Order Review Form dated. 12/27/2021, signed by an immigration officer with his recommendation to continue petitioner's detention, there is also a signature of the AD dated 12/28/2021. "The signature and date are stripped of any text," the order states. It is added that the Advocate General considers that the signature and date disclose the AD's decision to extend the petitioner's detention, but the Court states: "I respectfully dissent."
Citing also case law, the Court held that the AD's signature at the top of the first page of the form, and the recording of the date below her signature, do not reveal her own decision regarding an extension of detention.
"Speculation and speculation are not permitted, especially on matters involving deprivation of human liberty," the ruling said.
The petition was found to be justified, concluded the Court, which issued a privileged writ of habeas corpus ordering the petitioner's immediate dismissal.
Source: CNA
Contents of this article including associated images are belongs Cyprus Times
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or Cyprus Times
Source
