Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1996

Vol. 465 No. 4

Written Answers. - Russian Army Deserters.

Michael P. Kitt

Question:

41 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Minister for Justice if her Department was contacted by the two men who claimed to be Russian army deserters; if so, when; the amount paid by her Department in respect of their travel arrangements to Great Britain; whether they applied for refugee status; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8311/96]

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Owen)

It is not the practice to comment publicly on individual applications for refugee status having regard to the fact that applications by their nature are made in confidence, with an expectation by applicants that such confidence will be preserved.

However, in this instance, due to the fact that the individuals in question have already revealed certain details in the media, I can confirm some aspects of their case. They arrived in Galway on 12 April 1996 and applied for political asylum. They had, however, already entered the State on 2 April 1996, having travelled here from the United Kingdom where they had arrived on 23 March 1996 and where they had been granted visitors' conditions. They applied on that first visit for political asylum at my Department, using names and nationalities different to those published. They were informed by officials of my Department that their application for political asylum would not be processed in this country in line with the internationally accepted practice that asylum seekers should apply in the first safe country reached and that they had the opportunity to make such an application in the United Kingdom.

They were refused leave to land in this State on 3 April 1996 as they were not in possession of valid Irish visas. Prior to taking this action, the United Kingdom authorities had been consulted and had agreed to accept both individuals back and to process their applications for political asylum. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had also been contacted and agreed that this was the appropriate course. They returned to the United Kingdom on 3 April 1996 at a cost of £208 to the State.

The present whereabouts of the two individuals is unknown and the matter has been referred to the Garda authorities for their attention.

The publicity accorded to the two men in this case highlights the need for great caution on the part of the media and of agencies dealing with asylum seekers. The level of attention accorded to these two could, in the case of genuine fugitives from prosecution, run the risk of endangering family or other connections in the home countries. I might add that I understand that the publicity in this case was sought by the individuals concerned against the advice of the local Red Cross Society.

The Refugee Bill, 1995, which is before the Seanad at the moment, having passed all Stages in this House, contains provisions to protect the identity of asylum seekers. Pending the enactment of these provisions into law, there is, I believe, merit in encouraging persons who may be disposed to make public comment to voluntarily observe the principles underlying these identity protection provisions.