THE HIGH COURT
			JUDICIAL REVIEW
			2000 No. 110 I.A.
BETWEEN
MOHAMED AHMED SALLIM 
			APPLICANT
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM INTERIM REFUGEE APPEALS AUTHORITY, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
			RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Finnegan delivered the 2nd day April, 2001.
	This is an Application to extend time for leave to apply for Judicial Review under Order 84 Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and Section 5 (2)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000.  The matters to which I should have regard in relation to the latter as those set out in my judgment GK & Others -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform and Others 6th March, 2001 namely 
1.	the period of delay and the explanation thereof 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 affecting the Applicant
7.	the requirements of Justice
   	The Applicant was refused refugee status on the 1st March, 2000 and on appeal to the Appeals Authority his appeal was rejected and he was notified of this by letter dated 17th November, 2000.  On the 21st November, 2000 the Applicant contacted his solicitor for an appointment and an appointment was made for the 22nd November, 2000.  Following a consultation a brief was prepared for Senior Counsel and sent to him on 24th November, 2000.  By fax dated the 28th November, 2000 Senior Counsel sought further instructions.  On 30th November, 2000 the Applicant contacted his solicitor and a consultation with Senior and Junior Counsel was arranged for 6th December, 2000 and a day or two thereafter Senior Counsel furnished his advice.  The Applicant’s solicitor was abroad on holiday from the 7th December, 2000 to 12th December, 2000.  A Motion was issued seeking an extension of time on the 22nd December, 2000.  In these circumstances there are two relevant periods of delay i.e., from the 29th November, 2000 to the 6th December, 2000 and from the 8th December, 2000 to the 22nd December, 2000.  In respect of the first period I take into account that it included a weekend and I so regard the delay as extending to 5 working days only.  As to the second period I am prepared to discount a period of 7 days during which the Applicant’s solicitor was on holidays.  However the fact that this delay was incurred placed a heavy onus on the Applicant’s solicitor to act with expedition on his return from holidays.  I have been furnished with no explanation or excuse in respect of the 10 day period of delay from 12th December to the 22nd December, 2000.
	The policy underlying the provisions contained in the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 Section 5 is that a challenge to a relevant decision must be made promptly and I am not satisfied that this had been done in the present case.  The delay however cannot be attributed in any way to the Applicant it resulting entirely from delay reasonably incurred in obtaining the advice of Senior Counsel and acting upon that advice and to delays which occurred in the solicitors office.  However 5 days of the first period of delay and 10 days of the second period of delay are neither explained nor excused.  While I distinguish personal blameworthiness on the part of an Applicant and the default of his solicitor the latter alone will not generally be sufficient to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of an Applicant.  Having regard to the policy underlying
 the strict time limits imposed by the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 Section 5(2)(a) the delay is excessive.  I have considered all the other matters listed above and nothing arises on foot of the same to influence me to exercise my discretion in favour of the Applicant.  Accordingly I refuse to grant and extension of time.
	Insofar as the application is pursuant to the Rules of the Superior Courts Order 84 Rule 21 the Applicant seeks to challenge the decision refusing him refugee status made on the 1st March, 2000.  The Applicant has failed to satisfy me that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application should be made and accordingly I refuse to extend time to enable this decision to be challenged.  The decision on appeal is also sought to be challenged.  This was made on the 31st July, 2000.  As the relief sought is Certiorari the relevant period prescribed by Order 84 Rule 21 is 6 months.  The Motion seeking an extension of time issued on 12th December, 2000 and I consider this to be the date to which I should have regard.  As this date is within the period of 6 months from the date of the decision sought to be impugned I propose extending time to enable the Applicant to apply for leave in relation to the decision of 31st July, 2000.  I extend the time to Friday next for the issue of a Notice of Motion.