Deputy Seán Barrett has given notice of his intention to raise the problem relating to a Chinese student who has spent the last six months in Mount joy Prison without being charged with any offence because the Department of Justice are awaiting documentation as to whether or not he should be granted political asylum.
Adjournment Debate. - Detention of Chinese Student.
I am grateful for this opportunity. Like thousands of other people who read in the newspaper this morning about this very sad case I was horrified to think that such a thing could happen in this country and that an individual could spend six months in prison without a charge against him. I would describe this as internment without trial. If a similar incident occurred abroad involving an Irish citizen the people here would be marching in the streets and this House would be in chaos every morning as assurances would be sought from the Taoiseach and Government of the day that the rights of a citizen would be protected. It is extraordinary that it took a report in The Irish Times to bring to public attention the fact that this man has spent six months in prison. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that tomorrow morning he will make arrangements to use his powers under the Aliens Act to release him. I understand that four requests have already been made to the Minister for Justice to take such action.
There is no justification whatever for putting this man in prison without charge. According to reports he has suffered a great deal in his own country fighting for democracy and now he finds himself incarcerated in another democracy. It is accepted that information must be sought in cases where a person seeks political refuge, but there are agencies such as the Irish Red Cross, the Eastern Health Board and Amnesty who could have taken this person under their supervision. He should have been offered hostel accommodation over the past six months. I understand an official of the Department stated that they were awaiting correspondence from the UN High Commission for Refugees. Why leave somebody in prison if it takes six months to gather the necessary documentation?
Apart from the human aspect of the question, it costs about £600 a week to keep a prisoner in Mountjoy. It emerged at recent conferences held by prison officers and gardaí that convicted prisoners are being released after serving short periods of their sentences because there is no room to keep them any longer. Yet we can keep this man for six months, against whom no charge has been made. It is absolutely extraordinary that procedures could not be put in place whereby this person could be kept in a hostel or some other type of accommodation pending completion of an investigation.
This is a flagrant abuse of human rights and it is the second time in 12 months that this Government have been responsible for such a situation. We should have learned from the case 12 months ago involving a man from Somalia. Deputy Carey pursued that issue for weeks.
We can understand the fear in the mind of that student, whose 21st birthday will occur on 17 May. He probably does not speak English and does not understand our culture. He has nobody to mix with and has been imprisoned for six months simply because he is seeking political asylum. Maybe he is not entitled to it, but surely we should respect human rights to a greater degree than displayed in this case. The Minister should give an assurance for the sake of our reputation abroad that never again will this be allowed happen. I want an assurance that the lock will be opened tomorrow morning and the man put into proper accommodation pending the outcome of an investigation into his case.
I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the comments made by Deputy Barrett on this case.
I would like to take this opportunity to place on record certain factors which should be borne in mind by all concerned when discussing matters of this kind. First of all, I believe that the name and nationality of any applicant for asylum should not be publicly disclosed. I say this for two reasons — firstly in the interest of the applicant whose application may be refused, leading to his return to his country of origin. The fact of his having applied for asylum might cause difficulties for him or her either from the authorities or from friends and associates or from potential employers. Secondly, the fact of the application having been made, whether successful or not, could cause difficulties in the country of origin for the family, friends and associates of the applicant.
I would like to emphasise that I am not suggesting that the unfortunate publication of certain personal information which has occurred in certain cases has ever led to these consequences but it is something that should be borne in mind by everybody.
I also want to reassure the House that the procedures we follow in these matters involving, as they do, consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner and the Department of Foreign Affairs, have not been found wanting in any respect and were endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at a meeting in Brussels in March of this year.
Turning to the specific case raised by Deputy Barrett, the position is that the person in question presented himself to an immigration officer at Dublin Airport on 25 October last after arriving from Amsterdam. He presented a Japanese passport and an onward ticket to London.
Closer inspection of the passport led the immigration officers to believe that it did not refer to the person who presented it. When he was questioned by the immigration officer with the assistance of interpreters it emerged that he could not speak Japanese. He was refused leave to land and placed in custody so that inquiries regarding his nationality could be carried out.
On the following day members of his family, some of whom were resident in the United Kingdom, telephoned and stated that the person's intention was to visit his family in Manchester. Later that evening three people who identified themselves as relatives of the person arrived in Dublin from Manchester. They stated that it was the person's intention to travel to the United Kingdom via Ireland.
On 27 October last, solicitors acting on behalf of the person indicated their intention to apply for asylum in Ireland. On 4 December last this application was received and inquiries concerning it, involving the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Department of Foreign Affairs, are still continuing.
It will be clear that there are a number of aspects to this case which will require careful study before any decision regarding refugee status can be made.
During the course of proceedings in the High Court, in the context of the continued detention of this person, it was accepted by the court and by counsel acting on his behalf that the detention was in accordance with law. The court also said that the detention could be ended by the withdrawal of the application by the person concerned in which event the arrangements for his removal, suspended while his application is pending, would be renewed.
In connection with the possible release of the person while his application is being considered, the Deputy and the House will appreciate that, in the event of the application being refused, we would be obliged to make arrangements for his removal, not least because of our obligations to the Geneva Convention and to those recognised as refugees under it. I am not satisfied, given the evidence of his ticketing arrangements and the statements of his family that he intended to visit them in Manchester or that he would remain in this country until his application for asylum is decided upon.