The Supreme Court has dismissed an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Sierra Leone national who is being held in detention for the purpose of deportation from the Republic of Cyprus.
In its ruling, the Court concluded that the duration of the applicant’s detention had not exceeded reasonable limits and therefore remained lawful.
The applicant argued that his prolonged detention pending deportation had become unlawful due to its length and alleged inactivity by the authorities in carrying out his removal from the country.
Long legal and administrative history
According to the case background, the applicant entered Cyprus illegally in 2015 and was arrested for unlawful entry and stay. He later applied for international protection, but his asylum claims and subsequent appeals were rejected.
The deportation process was repeatedly suspended due to legal and administrative actions initiated by the applicant. During this period, he was also convicted by a Criminal Court and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for serious offences.
After serving his sentence, he was again placed in detention for deportation purposes, with further asylum and legal proceedings following.
Legal principles on detention
The Court reiterated that habeas corpus is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty and may only be issued where detention is proven to be unlawful or unjustified.
It also stressed that detention for deportation cannot be indefinite and must be linked to a realistic and active prospect of removal. However, assessment of detention length must depend on the specific circumstances of each case.
Applicant’s conduct considered decisive
A key factor in the Court’s decision was that delays in deportation were largely linked to repeated legal actions initiated by the applicant, which led to suspensions of the removal process.
The Court also accepted that the applicant had not cooperated with authorities in obtaining travel documents, complicating efforts to execute his deportation.
Deportation process ongoing
The Court found no evidence supporting the claim that a new asylum application had been submitted, which could have affected the legality of detention or removal.
Instead, it was established that authorities had obtained the necessary travel documents and arranged for his repatriation to Sierra Leone via a third country, indicating that the deportation process was active and ongoing.
Final ruling
The Court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention had become unreasonable or unlawful, or that authorities had abandoned efforts to deport him.
The habeas corpus application was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Also read: “Mafia State” report published, assigning responsibility to key figures
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
