Several legal challenges have been filed in the High Court claiming that the provision of tent-based accommodation at places like Crooksling in Dublin County, fails to provide for the essential needs of asylum seekers. The most recent case brought to the court is by a man from Somalia who was initially homeless when he first arrived in the country last December.
The man’s case questions the adequacy of “material reception conditions”, including accommodation, since he stated his intention to seek international protection in the country. He claims his right to a “dignified standard of living” was violated by being forced to live on the streets for four months and later by providing him with tent accommodation.
Issues related to homelessness have been brought up in prior legal challenges, some of which resulted in the High Court ruling that the State failed in its responsibilities and infringed on asylum seekers’ rights. These rulings prompted the introduction of certain new measures, including an increase in the weekly payment to homeless international protection applicants.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission later filed a case arguing that the new measures were still insufficient to bring the State into compliance with its international obligations. A judgment is pending in this case, which is being contested by the State.
A new series of cases argue that providing tent-based accommodation at sites such as Crooksling also falls short of meeting the standards. Ms Justice Niamh Hyland was informed on Friday that the case of the man from Somalia is among several that deal with asylum seeker homelessness and tented accommodation.
The man’s barrister, Colm O’Dwyer SC, told the judge the situation was “not suitable”. The notion is challenged by David Conlan Smyth SC’s clients: the Minister for Equality and Integration, Ireland and the Attorney General. The case has been postponed until next October when similar cases are expected to be presented before the court.
The individual, whose identity remains undisclosed, claims that he was forced to sleep in doorways and occasionally in a small tent near Dublin city’s Mount Street during the rainiest time of the year. With his weekly €113 aid barely covering his meal expenses, he argues that it was not enough to provide him a dignified survival.
Later, he was offered place in Crooksling, situated near Dublin mountain, where he shared army tents with nearly a dozen other men. Though being accommodated led to a reduction in his weekly allotment from €113.80 to €38.80; as he highlights, the location provided him with three daily meals and access to basic sanitation facilities, such as toilets and showers. But, he argues, the facilities still do not cater to basic living standards.
He alleges that his experiences are an outcome of the State’s failure, leading him to undergo loss, detriment, inconvenience and resulted in additional expenses.