Following the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was designated as a safe third country in December 2020 when the Minister for Justice and Equality signed the International Protection (Safe Third Country) Order 2020 (S.I. No. 725 of 2020) into law. This was done in accordance with the authority granted by Article 72A of the 2015 International Protection Act. 

In light of UK government Policy with Rwanda, which seeks to transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda for the processing of their asylum claim, the case under consideration concerned the legality of designating the United Kingdom as a safe third country. The two applicants, holding different nationalities, contested the legality of the decision to admit them to the UK's international protection procedure and return them to the UK to have their applications further processed, based on the UK's safe country designation. Moreover, the proceedings also called into question the legal grounds for determining a safe third country as Irelands asylum policy is subject to a common EU policy on asylum and operates within the framework of the Common European Asylum System. The High Court identified these two cases to be lead examples as they raise issues which are common in a large number of other cases.

The High Court determined the safe third country concept is established by national law. In so far as the prerequisites for its implementation, as stipulated by EU legislation, are met, and functioning properly, it is not prohibited by EU law. 

The High Court stated that “Mandatory conditions prescribed by EU law have not been provided, however, through the legislative provision made for same under the 2015 Act (as amended). Specifically, no proper provision has been made for conditions precedent to the application of the safe third country concept necessitated by Article 38(1)(b) of the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive as regards the risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of the Recast Qualification Directive which applies by operation of Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Regulation. Similarly, no proper provision is made for the Minister or the Tribunal to be satisfied as to whether Article 27(1)(d) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (as reflected in s.72A(2)(d) of the 2015 Act) is met with regard to the existence in the third safe country of a possibility to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention when returning an applicant (as opposed to when the designation was made)”

The High Court ruled that the designation of the United Kingdom as a safe third country is contrary to EU law in the absence of the abovementioned provisions. Moreover, the Minister's reliance on the 2020 Designation Order is insufficient because the statutory scheme violates EU law requirements by failing to include effective methodology rules in Irish law to ensure that the conditions for designation are met before issuing a return order. Furthermore, the inability to provide for a broader rights review prior to issuing a return order breaches EU law. The High Court thus concluded that the designation of the United Kingdom as a safe third country pursuant to the 2020 Designation Order is contrary to Irelands obligations under EU law and quashed the contested decisions.