THE HIGH COURT
			JUDICIAL REVIEW				No. 101a
ANTHONY BENSON
			APPLICANT
AND 
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
			RESPONDENT
AND 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
			NOTICE PARTY
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice  Finnegan delivered the 2nd day of April, 2001.
	This matter comes before me by way of an Application to extend time pursuant to Order 84 Rule 21 of the Superior Court Rules and the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 Section 5 (2)(a).
	In determining this Application on the latter basis I propose to have regard to the following -
1.	the period of delay and the explanation therefor and any excuse proffered in respect thereof 
2.	the extent to which the Applicant bears personal responsibility for the delay
3.	the prima facie strength of the Applicant’s case
4.	the complexity of the legal issues
5.	any language difficulties or difficulties in obtaining an interpreter 
6.	any personal circumstances which exist in respect of the Applicant
7.	the requirements of justice
	See my decision in GK & Others -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & Others  6th March 2001.
	The Statement to Ground application for Judicial Review seeks relief in respect of a decision of the Refugee Appeals Authority dated 23rd May, 2000 and a decision of the Respondent dated 19th  June, 2000 and in respect of each of these the application is much delayed and I refuse to extend time in respect thereof.
	A Deportation Order was made against the Applicant on the 27th July, 2000 and he was notified of this pursuant to Section 3(3)(b)(ii) of the Immigration Act, 1999 on the 4th December, 2000.  The period of 15 working days prescribed by the Immigration Act, 1999 Section 3(3)(b) commenced on the 4th December, 2000 and expired by my calculation having regard to the intervention of the Christmas holiday on the 29th December, 2000.  The period of delay which falls to be considered is that from the 29th December, 2000 to 14th February, 2001 the date upon which the Notice of Motion in this matter was issued.  I accept for the purposes of this application that the Applicant did not receive the letter of the 4th December, 2000 and that he first learned of the Deportation Order when he telephoned his solicitor after Christmas 2000.  He attended his solicitors office for a consultation thereafter.  His solicitor in an Affidavit sworn on the 14th February, 2001 deposes that he was unable to give priority to processing a case on behalf of the Applicant due to pressure of work.  The Applicant was arrested pursuant to the Immigration Act, 1999  Section 5(1) as inserted by the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 Section 10(b) on the 7th February, 2001.
	In the particular circumstances in which the Applicant found himself, namely, first learning of the letter of 4th December, 2000 after the period prescribed by Section 3(3)(b) for making representations it behoved him and his advisors to move the application for Judicial Review with expedition and this clearly was not done.  Inactivity on the part of an Applicants’ solicitor having regard to the scheme of the Act, which requires these matters to be dealt with promptly, is not of itself a ground upon which the Court will exercise its discretion to extend time in favour of an Applicant.  The Applicant did not receive the letter of 4th December, 2000 by reason of his changing his address and failing to notify the change to the Respondent.  He did however make contact with the Garda Siochana at Dundalk.  Garda Gerard O’Connor, the Immigration Officer for the Dundalk District, dealt with the Applicant at Dundalk Garda Station.  It is his practice in each and every case to advise an Applicant for refugee status of the necessity and importance of notifying the Respondent of the change of address.  It is probable that he did this when the Applicant attended at Dundalk Garda Station on the 21st September, 2000 yet an address was not notified.  In these circumstances I am satisfied that the sole responsibility for the letter of 4th December, 2000 not being received  rests with the Applicant and accordingly non receipt of the letter did not justify the delay: See my decision in P -v- The Governor of the Training Unit and Others 18th August, 2000.  I take into account all those factors listed by me in GK & Others -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others 6th March, 2001 and save in relation to the Applicants’ personal circumstances nothing arises to influence me in the exercise of my discretion in favour of the Applicant.  I take into account in particular the personal circumstances of the Applicant.  On the 6th June, 2000 he was granted permission to work and has been in employment continuously since shortly after that date.  The Applicant’s partner is a Nigerian citizen.  Her father is an Irish citizen.  She has an application for Irish citizenship pending.  She is expecting the Applicant’s child in June next.  While these circumstances excite considerable sympathy both for the Applicant and for his partner having regard to the period of delay and all the circumstances of the case they are insufficient to justify a departure from the policy of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 which requires that challenges to decisions be made promptly.  Accordingly I refuse the application to extend time.  However I propose placing a 28 day stay upon the enforcement of the Deportation Order from today’s date to enable representations to be made to the Respondent arising out of the circumstances which I mention affecting the Applicant’s partner with a view to his persuading the Respondent to make an Order pursuant to the Immigration Act, 1999 Section 3(11) or grant other relief on humanitarian considerations.